Roswell Time line.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com wrote:
Article is from one of David's articles of several months
ago and I just happened to run across it again and decided
to check his "facts".
<snip>
>Here are some of the more important known wire stories from AP and UP.
>2:26 p.m. (Eastern Time): AP Press release first goes out.
David, don't tell anyone but I'll let you in on a little
secret.
Roswell is in Mountain time!
The AP Press release first went out at 2:26 P.M. in Roswell
Time!
(3:26 PM Ft.Worth Time and 4:26 Washington Time)
If you'd like some confirmation from a non-skeptical source,
David, there is:
"The excitement began at 4:26 PM (2:26 PM Roswell time) when
the story went out over the wire.... 4 minutes later, at
4:30PM Washington, D.C., time, there was the "first add:""
(Pg 46, The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell.)
About 4 PM in Ft. Worth (3 PM in Roswell and 5 PM in
Washington) Johnson gets word to get over to FWAAF and take
some photos of the flying disc coming in from Roswell.
During this time, Ramey's phone is ringing off the hook with
questions about the flying disc.
About 4:30 Ft. Worth time Johnson gets to FWAAF and is shown
right in to Ramey's office instead of having to go through
the PIO.
So the wire story went out at 3:26 PM Ft. Worth time and by
4:30 PM Ft. Worth time, Johnson was in Ramey's office
looking at the debris!
Ramey has had only a few minutes to come up with the
supposed cover story and to have supposedly find the phoney
debris. Now, where did he find neoprene that had been out
in the sun for three weeks and a smashed ML-307 in these few
minutes?
There were no ML-307s at either RAAF or FWAAF!
No one keeps old neoprene rubber from weather balloons for
times when they might need to scuttle flying disc stories,
either.
So, where did he find exactly what he needed in such a short
time?
<snip>
Bob & Louise
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Ramey has had only a few minutes to come up with the
> supposed cover story and to have supposedly find the phoney
> debris. Now, where did he find neoprene that had been out
> in the sun for three weeks and a smashed ML-307 in these few
> minutes?
> There were no ML-307s at either RAAF or FWAAF!
> No one keeps old neoprene rubber from weather balloons for
> times when they might need to scuttle flying disc stories,
> either.
> So, where did he find exactly what he needed in such a short
> time?
Twitch,
The explosion from the crash occured on July 2nd. The Army didn't
display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash site.
That's more than ample time, and more than ample accessibility.
Bob
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
alt.ufo.reports removed.
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Ramey has had only a few minutes to come up with the
>> supposed cover story and to have supposedly find the phoney
>> debris. Now, where did he find neoprene that had been out
>> in the sun for three weeks and a smashed ML-307 in these few
>> minutes?
>> There were no ML-307s at either RAAF or FWAAF!
>> No one keeps old neoprene rubber from weather balloons for
>> times when they might need to scuttle flying disc stories,
>> either.
>> So, where did he find exactly what he needed in such a short
>> time?
>
> Twitch,
> The explosion from the crash occured on July 2nd.
Wow!
They had time travel even!
Brazel stated that he found the debris on the 14th of June.
So, he found the debris over two weeks prior to the
explosion!
Of course, Randle and Friedman don't agree on even when the
crash (or explosion) took place and when the debris was
found!
"It all began on the morning of Thursday, July 3, 1947, when
two innocent people stumbled upon the remains of a crashed
"flying disc" on a section of sheep ranch dotted with rocks,
scrub bushes, and tough buffalo grass. William "Mac"
Brazel, foreman of the Foster Ranch, and his 7-year old
neighbor Dee Proctor were out checking for damage after the
previous night's violent thunderstorm."
"If Mac Brazel hadn't been in his field on the morning of
July 5, 1947, the story might never have reached the public.
The strange metallic debris that was settled over one of his
pastures southeast of Corona, New Mexico, might never have
been discussed publicly."
>The Army didn't
> display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
> Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
> debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash site.
IOW, Marcel lied?
After all, Marcel claimed it was on the 7th that he got the
phone call from Wilcox.
IOW, Wilcox lied?
After all, Wilcox claimed it was on the 7th that Brazel came
to see him.
IOW, Brazel lied?
After all, Brazel claimed it was on the 7th that he went
into town to sell some wool and report the debris that he
had found on the 14th of June.
> That's more than ample time, and more than ample accessibility.
Only if you believe that everyone lied in 1947 and that
everyone is accurate anywhere from 31 to almost 50 years
later.
The Press release that started it all went out at 3:26 PM
Ft. Worth time.
Marcel apparently landed at about 4:00PM Ft. Worth time.
Ramey was showing Johnson the debris in his office just
after 4:30PM Ft. Worth time.
They didn't have a need for the debris until after the press
release went out. And, then they had to find it in only
minutes.
Where did they get it from since RAAF and FWAAF didn't have
any of these?
David Rudiak
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>DRu...@aol.com wrote:
>Article is from one of David's articles of several months
>ago and I just happened to run across it again and decided
>to check his "facts".
><snip>
>>Here are some of the more important known wire stories from AP and UP.
>>2:26 p.m. (Eastern Time): AP Press release first goes out.
>David, don't tell anyone but I'll let you in on a little
>secret.
>Roswell is in Mountain time!
Well at least Twitch got that part right. What's secret about this?
>The AP Press release first went out at 2:26 P.M. in Roswell
>Time!
>(3:26 PM Ft.Worth Time and 4:26 Washington Time)
Twitch didn't tell anyone, but I'll let you in on a little secret. To avoid
confusion about time, all wire services referenced their transmission times to
_Eastern Time_. Therefore any time stamp on a commercial outgoing or received
teletype message, regardless of location, was (and is) always Eastern time.
However, when telegrams were delivered locally to people, the time was
translated from Eastern to local time. I got this information directly from
Western Union about two years ago when I called their corporate office back
East. The other major wire services back in 1947 were RCA and ITT.
There is a surviving original United Press teletype message with breaking news
that came out immediately after the AP press release, with the time of 2:41.
This is EASTERN TIME, and fixes the time of the AP story at 12:26 Mountain or
Roswell time.
>If you'd like some confirmation from a non-skeptical source,
>David, there is:
If you like some confirmation from a skeptical source, Twitch, try Philip Klass'
recently published book on Roswell. That's about as skeptical as you get! He
agrees that the surviving teletype messages pinpoint the time that the original
press release went out at 2:26 Eastern time or 12:26 Roswell time.
(That also happens to agree with all those allegedly unreliable "ancient
memories" of the Roswell newspeople involved, including Walter Haut, all of whom
remember the release being delivered at around noon or shortly thereafter.)
>"The excitement began at 4:26 PM (2:26 PM Roswell time) when
>the story went out over the wire.... 4 minutes later, at
>4:30PM Washington, D.C., time, there was the "first add:""
>(Pg 46, The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell.)
Randle and Schmitt are in error on this. They didn't take into account that the
wire services referenced all messages to Eastern time. Yeah Twitch, I know
they're not perfect.
>About 4 PM in Ft. Worth (3 PM in Roswell and 5 PM in
>Washington) Johnson gets word to get over to FWAAF and take
>some photos of the flying disc coming in from Roswell.
Or two and a half-hours after the press release went out at 12:26 Roswell time.
Marcel had to fly to Fort Worth first. He couldn't do that in half an hour.
>During this time, Ramey's phone is ringing off the hook with
>questions about the flying disc.
When did Ramey's phone start "ringing off the hook?" Let's look at some
contemporary news stories. First, the New York Times, July 9, 1947:
"Celestrial crockery had the Army up in the air for SEVERAL HOURS yesterday
before an Army officer [warrant officer Irving Newton] explained that what a
colleague thought was 'a flying disk' was nothing more than a battered Army
weather balloon. ...WITHIN AN HOUR after Lieutenant Haught had given new
impetus to the 'flying saucer' derby, his boss, Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey Roger
Ramey, had a somewhat different version of 'the flying disk.' He said that
while it was true it had been found on a ranch, no one had seen it in the
air; it was 'of flimsy construction," apparently made 'of some sort of tin
foil.' ...In Washington, Lieut. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, Deputy Chief of the
Army Air Forces, hurried to his headquarters press section."
So Ramey was putting out a different story WITHIN AN HOUR of the press release,
and Newton didn't do his ID for SEVERAL HOURS. There is more corroboration
below from other news stories.
What was Vandenberg doing "within an hour" of the AP story? In Washington, one
hour afterwards would be 3:26.
According to Vandenberg's appointments book and diary summarizing his schedule,
published in the 1995 AF Report, Vandenberg was scheduled to meet with Air
Marshall Goddard at 3:00 pm Washington time (1:00 Roswell time) and then with
Congressman Wolverton at 4:00 p.m. with nothing scheduled inbetween. The
summary diary says he instead took a call at 3:00 pm from Gen. Lyon and another
at 3:25 from Sen. Cabot Lodge, and at 3:10 the diary says simply "Air Marshall
Goddard." But unlike other entries in the diary, there is no summary of what
transpired. This leaves a possible 15 minute or so gap corresponding to "within
an hour" of the press release in which Vandenberg could have "hurried to his
headquarters press section," to put in an appearance.
The Washington Post went into more detail of what Vandenberg did at the press
section and what Ramey said. Compare to the NY Times story.
"...under the personal direction of Lieut. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, acting AAF
chief, who dropped into the Washington AAF public information headquarters in
the midst of the excitement, they burned up the wires to Texas and New
Mexico... They got from Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, Eighth Air Force Commander,
a description of the object. It was 'of very flimsy construction -- almost
like a box-kite', made of wood and with a cover 'like tinfoil'...
"Ramey said he hadn't actually seen it himself as yet. He went to take a
look, and called back that it was about 25 feet in diameter. He said he was
shipping it on to Wright Field, Ohio, but would have one of the
meteorological officers look at it first..."
So according to this, Ramey was giving a description of the boxkite and tinfoil
BEFORE he says he has even seen the material yet. After he says he has seen
whatever, he claims it was about 25 feet in diameter, matching nothing in the
photos later taken. He says all this within an hour after the press release, or
BEFORE Marcel has arrived at Fort Worth. Marcel has barely taken off from
Roswell. And clearly Irving Newton hasn't seen it yet. Ramey said he had yet
to bring in a meteorological officer.
As to when Newton does come in to identify it, the Washington Post states
variously that it was "three hectic hours" and "a few hours later and two days
after the 'disc' had been in official hands' that 'it was rudely exposed as an
imposter' 'when an Army warrant officer identified the object.' This is roughly
two hours AFTER Ramey has made his earlier statements to the Washington press.
Another New York paper, N.Y. PM, added some additional information:
"Ramey said he couldn't let anybody look at the thing or photograph it
because Washington had clamped a 'security lid' on all but the sketchiest
details."
Therefore, clearly Ramey is saying all this BEFORE Newton or the photographer
Johnson had come in yet.
"'The object,' he said, 'is in my office right now and as far as I can see
there is nothing to get excited about. It looks to me like THE REMNANT OF
A WEATHER BALLOON AND A RADAR REFLECTOR.'"
There's a direct, contemporaneous quote from Ramey very clearly stating that he
was already identifying the whatever as a weather balloon/radar target (note the
singular reference.) And amazingly, this non-weather officer general has no
problems IDing a weather balloon and radar target. And he is saying all this
well before Johnson and Newton get there.
And here's another story from the San Francisco Examiner by Dick Pearce with yet
another angle on all this and further corroboration of Ramey's early weather
balloon story being put out within an hour of the press release:
"Lt. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, deputy chief of the AAF, hurried to the AAF press
section in Washington and personally took charge as newspapers and wire
services clamored for details.
"WITHIN AN HOUR telephone lines into sparse New Mexico were jammed... (The
Examiner did not call Sheriff Wilcox. Surmising that the find had been
flown to Brig. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, commanding general of the Eighth Air
Force at fort Worth, Tex., The Examiner telephoned him. FIRST TO REACH
HIM, The Examiner got a complete description of the 'disc' from him, together
with his expressed suspicion that IT WAS JUST PART OF A WEATHER BALLOON. His
description talled with that of radar reflectors sent up with weather
balloons EVERY DAY at Oakland.)
"(As a result, The Examiner was able to give a prosaic name to the Army's
saucer LONG BEFORE the Army inself corrected the boner of its public
relations officer at Roswell.)
"A weather officer attached to the base weather station at Fort Worth finally
was called in, took one look at the tangled mess of aluminum foil, strings
and wood and made definite identification.
"Plans to fly it to the AAF laboratories at Wright Field, dayton, Ohio, were
abandoned promptly."
So again, we have Ramey IDing the whatever as a weather balloon/radar target
within an hour or so of the press release. If they were indeed first to reach
Ramey, this may have been just before Vandenberg or his people called Ramey from
the Pentagon PR office, and well BEFORE Marcel could possibly arrive in Fort
Worth. And again quite clearly, Newton has nowhere entered the picture at this
time to make his own weather balloon/radar target ID. The Examiner story, like
the others, indicates he was brought in later.
>About 4:30 Ft. Worth time Johnson gets to FWAAF and is shown
>right in to Ramey's office instead of having to go through
>the PIO.
Or about TWO entire hours AFTER Ramey has spoken to people like the S.F.
Examiner, N.Y. PM, and the Pentagon Washington PR room, and THREE hours after
the press release went out on the wire.
>So the wire story went out at 3:26 PM Ft. Worth time and by
>4:30 PM Ft. Worth time, Johnson was in Ramey's office
>looking at the debris!
[NOTE: All the following times are referenced to Fort Worth or Central time]
No, the story goes out at 1:26. That's DOCUMENTED. At around 2:00-2:30 Marcel
leaves for Ft. Worth and doesn't get there until around 4:00 (even Philip Klass
agrees with this, so Twitch can go argue with Klass). By 2:15 - 2:30, or
"within an hour" Ramey is talking to Washington and newspapers and putting out a
singular weather balloon/radar target story, claiming he has seen it even though
Marcel can't possibly be there with the real debris, and Ramey is giving a
description (25 feet across) that doesn't jibe with any of the material he
finally shows to Johnson for the first time at around 4:30. After Johnson takes
his pictures and talks to Ramey, Ramey calls in Newton, possibly around 5:00 and
Newton makes his ID, about 3-1/2 hours or so after the press release went out.
By 5:30, one of Ramey's intel officer's, Major E.M. Kirton is telling the Dallas
Morning News that the "disc" is nothing but a rawin-sonde high altitude sounding
device from a weather balloon, that the identification is final, and that
there's no need to send the device to Wright Field as originally planned. One
of Ramey's PR people was also quoted in an AP story as saying that the object
was in Ramey's office "and it'll probably stay right there." But by 6:17, the
Dallas FBI office sends a telegram, saying that the same "Maj. Kirton... advised
that the object found resembles a high altitude weather balloon with a radar
reflector, but that telephonic conversation between their office and Wright
Field had not borne out this belief." Furthermore, instead of the flight to
Wright Field being cancelled, the FBI had been informed that the "...disc and
balloon" were already "being transported..."
>Ramey has had only a few minutes to come up with the
>supposed cover story and to have supposedly find the phoney
>debris.
No, Ramey has THREE HOURS, not "a few minutes," to come up with phoney debris
before reporter Johnson gets there to take pictures. That's assuming this was
all a hastily contrived story only developed after the press release went out.
Philip Klass agrees with this basic timeline between press release, Marcel
getting to Fort Worth, and photos taken, so again, Twitch can go argue with
Klass if he doesn't like it.
And Ramey is clearly putting out a weather balloon/radar target story within
only ONE HOUR of the press release, BEFORE Marcel has gotten to Fort Worth with
the real debris.
Where did Ramey get the balloon debris? As I've mentioned for about the
millioneth time, every weather service in the country, civilian and military,
used neoprene balloons, of all colors and sizes, including black ones and
unpigmented ones. Hundreds of weather balloons were launched every day all over
the country. No problems with a weather balloon.
Newton was quoted in 1947 as saying the radar target could have come from any of
80 weather stations. The Army weather service near Wright Field was quoted
three days before saying that the weather target recovered nearby at Circleville
was used by EVERY weather service in the country. The Washington Post wrote,
"...an Army warrant officer identified the object. It was part of a box-kite
type of weather balloon used by United States Weather Bureau and Army
meteorological stations all over the country!"
There are many possibilities as to where they could have gotten such debris. A
balloon from another weather service could have been launched elsewhere and
drifted into the Dallas/Fort Worth area, FWAAF could have been contacted, and
somebody could have gone out to pick it up in days before all this. In fact,
the day BEFORE the press release and Ramey's weather balloon, one of Ramey's
officers at Fort Worth was already offering radar targets as a possible
explanation for all the flying saucer reports.
For sure, identical radar targets were being used at White Sands, Alamogordo,
and Kansas City. These are all within two hours plane ride from Fort Worth.
Jan Aldrich of Project 1947 and somebody with former military meteorological
experience, has pointed out that artillery units also would have been using
these targets all over the place that summer to chart wind currents prior to
artillery practice. Aldrich stated that this included National Guard units
practicing that summer, including at military bases where they normally wouldn't
be found, and the normal Army weather people generally would not have been aware
of what they were up to. One possible place where such artillery practice could
have been going on was at Fort Ord, about 130 miles south of Fort Worth. If
necessary, a radar target could have been flown in from there within an hour.
There were about half a dozen other AAF bases within Texas, all of which were
other possible sources for radar targets, even if they didn't have them at
FWAAF.
And Ramey had far more time than this if it was a carefully constructed
debunking story dreamt up well in advance of the curious press release. The
press release then becomes part of the whole scheme. First announce a "flying
disk" recovery giving the sparsest of details to get everybody worked up. Then
quickly debunk the whole thing with a weather balloon. In this case, the debris
could have come from anywhere, even have been flown in special from Wright Field
which had access to tons of radar targets from the nearby Clinton County Army
weather service which was launching them.
> Now, where did he find neoprene that had been out
>in the sun for three weeks
And once again Twitch begs the question. He assumes a priori this was neoprene
from Mogul and that it was exposed to the sun for nearly five weeks (the time
between the supposed Mogul launch and the recovery.)
I suppose Twitch keeps using the "three week" figure, because Mogul engineer
Charles Moore is generally quoted as saying that neoprene turns black when
exposed to the sun after about three weeks, and the balloon material in the
photos has a darkened appearance. But Moore has also been quoted as saying that
neoprene turned "dark gray" after only a "few days" (A.F. affidavit).
Furthermore, Moore has been quoted and given demos showing that neoprene exposed
to the sun for only two or three weeks, not even five weeks, has done more than
turn blackish. It has become brittle, lost its rubberish elasticity, and has
begun to break up into "ashlike" flakes. A recent televised demo of this by
Moore was shown last November on a "Scientific American Frontiers" broadcast on
PBS.
But the balloon lying in a folded heap at Ramey's feet in the photos appears to
be relatively intact and not fragmented. It doesn't fit Mac Brazel's
description of "smoky gray" "rubber strips" which he claimed was scattered over
200 yards and which he rolled into a bundle. Nor is it a good fit for Moore's
brittle "ashlike" neoprene left in the sun for many weeks. In fact, Ramey
repeatedly refers to the balloon in the singular and so does the FBI telegram.
So what we have here was likely one of two things. Either it was a relatively
intact nonpigmented neoprene balloon that has been left in the sun for a few
days to a week, enabling it to turn a "dark gray," but not deteriorate to the
point of becoming brittle and ashlike. Or it was a black or dark, pigmented
balloon, also a part of the weather service arsenal. You can see a balloon
cluster of these lofting a Navy weather target, published in the Atlanta
Constitution two days later following a Navy demonstration.
However, what is shown in the photos does NOT match a balloon left in the hot
New Mexico sun for over a month much less "three weeks." That would have lost
its flexibility and been broken into brittle pieces, not lying folded in a heap
on the floor.
> and a smashed ML-307 in these few
>minutes?
>There were no ML-307s at either RAAF or FWAAF!
Twitch keeps saying this but he has never documented it. Newton in 1947 said 80
weather stations used these targets and what was in Ramey's office could have
come from any of them. The Army weather service near Wright Field had them and
demoed them for the press and said several days before that EVERY weather
station used them. Boeing Aircraft in Seattle used them. The Seattle civilian
weather service said they occasionally used them. One was recovered in
Bakersfield, Calif, others in Brawley and Victorville, CA. The one in Brawley
was thought to come from a military weather station in Yuma, Ariz. The one in
Victorville likely came from nearby George AFB or Muroc AAF (later Edwards AFB)
Mogul style targets were recovered in Ohio, New York, and Missouri. White Sands
used them for V-2 launches. Some would have been launched on July 2 and July 3
prior to a failed V-2 launch. That could have been a source. They were used at
the Army meteorological service in Kansas City. They may have been used by the
Univ. of Chicago for meteorological studies, and in New Jersey where they were
first developed. In fact the first two Mogul flights took place there (with
radar reflectors) as did a few later ones. Hdqtrs. of AAF meteorology in
Washington probably used them.
That's just what I know about. I don't know where Ramey got his radar target,
but he definitely wasn't restricted to something launched from Alamogordo, N.M.
If Twitch wants to ask were Ramey got his radar target, he might just as well
ask where the counterintelligence team got their radar targets for a demo launch
the following day at Alamogordo. Mogul engineer Charles Moore said they had
pretty much given up on radar targets and doesn't recall that they left any
balloon equipment behind, radar targets or neoprene balloons, when they packed
up and left the previous morning. If the counterintelligence team could get
them at Alamogordo, they could get them at Fort Worth.
>No one keeps old neoprene rubber from weather balloons for
>times when they might need to scuttle flying disc stories,
>either.
A valid point, but Twitch again begs the question by assuming the neoprene was
"old" as in his usual mantra of "three weeks old." Instead it could have been a
relatively fresh, recovered black pigmented neoprene balloon that came from
FWAAF, like those shown in the Atlanta Constitution, or a recently launched
nonpigmented balloon, recovered after being out for a few days in the sun where
it could turn a dark gray, as per Charles Moore's AF affidavit. The junk could
have been laying around ready for use in a recovery yard at FWAAF.
>So, where did he find exactly what he needed in such a short
>time?
Once you realize he had at least three hours instead of "minutes," there are a
lot of possibilities. That's why Twitch had to generate an erroneous timeline
which made it seem like Ramey's people had no time at all to come up with such
debris. However, even the evil Philip Klass would agree with me that there was
a good three hours between the press release going out over the AP wire and
reporter Johnson being admitted to Ramey's office to take pictures. You can
confirm that by looking at his new book.
In all fairness to Twitch, however, there is a great deal of confusion in all
camps about the timing of events that afternoon. As Twitch correctly points
out, even Randle & Schmitt placed the press release two hours later (but they
were wrong). It is very hard disambiguating which time zones are being referred
to and when exactly this or that happened. The main point is that Ramey had at
least three hours and was putting out a weather balloon/radar target story
within one hour, before the real debris arrived at Fort Worth. That part is
well-documented from surviving wire and newspaper stories. If this was all a
hastily contrived cover story after the press release, the timing would have
been tight for Ramey's people, but hardly impossible. And if it was all
contrived well before the press release, then the whole thing could have been
put together without breaking a sweat.
Bob & Louise
Scott A. Munro wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:26:03 -0800, Bob & Louise
> <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > The Army didn't
> > display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
> > Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
> > debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash site.
>
> "explosion" from the "crash") happened at all. You cannot argue for
> one assumption based on another.
> Scott A. Munro
Scott A. Munro,
Even though there exists much confusion about the exact time-line of
events of Roswell 47, the fact remains that our government's first
concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?" By the
time our foot-dragging military gives a response to a high-profile
sighting, it has already set into place simulations of the event and,
if need be, substitute artifacts.
Bob
Scott A. Munro
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Ramey has had only a few minutes to come up with the
>> supposed cover story and to have supposedly find the phoney
>> debris. Now, where did he find neoprene that had been out
>> in the sun for three weeks and a smashed ML-307 in these few
>> minutes?
>> There were no ML-307s at either RAAF or FWAAF!
>> No one keeps old neoprene rubber from weather balloons for
>> times when they might need to scuttle flying disc stories,
>> either.
>> So, where did he find exactly what he needed in such a short
>> time?
>
> Twitch,
> The explosion from the crash occured on July 2nd.
But Kevin Randle and Don "The Mailman" Schmitt say that it was on the
4th. A well-documented event, indeed!
> The Army didn't
> display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
> Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
> debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash site.
> That's more than ample time, and more than ample accessibility.
But you are assuming that it occurred on the 2nd, or even that it (the
"explosion" from the "crash") happened at all. You cannot argue for
one assumption based on another.
-----
Scott A. Munro http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/
UFOs, Jack the Ripper, politics, fiction,
computer art, and other strange subjects.
Proud member, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy™
Searcher
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<6bsi60$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>alt.ufo.reports removed.
>
>>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> Ramey has had only a few minutes to come up with the
>>> supposed cover story and to have supposedly find the phoney
>>> debris. Now, where did he find neoprene that had been out
>>> in the sun for three weeks and a smashed ML-307 in these few
>>> minutes?
>>> There were no ML-307s at either RAAF or FWAAF!
>>> No one keeps old neoprene rubber from weather balloons for
>>> times when they might need to scuttle flying disc stories,
>>> either.
>>> So, where did he find exactly what he needed in such a short
>>> time?
>>
>> Twitch,
>> The explosion from the crash occured on July 2nd.
>
>Wow!
>
>They had time travel even!
>
>Brazel stated that he found the debris on the 14th of June.
>So, he found the debris over two weeks prior to the
>explosion!
>
>Of course, Randle and Friedman don't agree on even when the
>crash (or explosion) took place and when the debris was
>found!
>
>"It all began on the morning of Thursday, July 3, 1947, when
>two innocent people stumbled upon the remains of a crashed
>"flying disc" on a section of sheep ranch dotted with rocks,
>scrub bushes, and tough buffalo grass. William "Mac"
>Brazel, foreman of the Foster Ranch, and his 7-year old
>neighbor Dee Proctor were out checking for damage after the
>previous night's violent thunderstorm."
>
>"If Mac Brazel hadn't been in his field on the morning of
>July 5, 1947, the story might never have reached the public.
>The strange metallic debris that was settled over one of his
>pastures southeast of Corona, New Mexico, might never have
>been discussed publicly."
>
>
>>The Army didn't
>> display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
>> Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
>> debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash site.
>
>IOW, Marcel lied?
>
>After all, Marcel claimed it was on the 7th that he got the
>phone call from Wilcox.
>
>IOW, Wilcox lied?
>
>After all, Wilcox claimed it was on the 7th that Brazel came
>to see him.
>
>IOW, Brazel lied?
>
>After all, Brazel claimed it was on the 7th that he went
>into town to sell some wool and report the debris that he
>had found on the 14th of June.
>
>> That's more than ample time, and more than ample accessibility.
>
>Only if you believe that everyone lied in 1947 and that
>everyone is accurate anywhere from 31 to almost 50 years
>later.
>
>The Press release that started it all went out at 3:26 PM
>Ft. Worth time.
>
>Marcel apparently landed at about 4:00PM Ft. Worth time.
>
>Ramey was showing Johnson the debris in his office just
>after 4:30PM Ft. Worth time.
>
>They didn't have a need for the debris until after the press
>release went out. And, then they had to find it in only
>minutes.
>
>Where did they get it from since RAAF and FWAAF didn't have
>any of these?
In what hanger was the infamous photo of the <cover-up> weather balloon
taken?
To say that the AF had no time OR resources to come up with a cover
story for the truth is complete nonsense -
Dis-information at it worst.......
if you truly believe this - I give you a big "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"
I actually think you know better ......
Joe Long / Searcher
http://www.cruzio.com/~picturjo
"The art of being wise is
the art of knowing what to overlook."
~William James
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
Oh good, David is back!
I'll take a few days to check the accuracy of what he is now
claiming.
but, in the meantime, here are some of the many questions
you've been ducking, David.
Remember this:
>>We have been all hearing for some time that Gen. (Then Col.)
>>DuBose has stated that there was a coverup and that the
>>debris was swapped.
>>This sounds damning!
>Twitch doesn't tell you that Gen. Dubose was first interviewed in 1979 and told
>the same story WITHOUT hypnotism, as can be read in the "Roswell Incident."
On what page does it say that DuBose said that the debris
was swapped, David?
What were the exact words in DuBose's 1979 affadavit, David?
Did DuBose say a coverup or a coverup and a swap of the
material?
And, what does it matter if the newsmen saw some of the
actual debris, David?
Remember, Marcel is quoted in that same book as saying:
"General Ramey allowed some members of the press in to take
a picture of the stuff. They took one picture of me on the
floor holding up some of the less-interesting metallic
debris. The press was allowed to photograph this, but were
not allowed far enough into the room to touch it. The stuff
in that photo was pieces of the actual stuff we found. It
was not a staged photo. Later, they cleared out our
wreckage and substituted some of their own. They they
allowed more photos. Those photos were taken while the
actual wreckage was already on its way to Wright Field. I
was not in these. I believe these were taken with the
general and one of his aids."
So, the photo of Jesse Marcel was with the real debris!
That debris is clearly of an ML-307 radar target!
In case, you wish to claim that Marcel was misquoted, Marcel
also stated in the movie UFOs are Real, that the newsmen saw
some of the real debris!
I'm still a little confused about this marvelous debris,
though.
Brazel said it was only about 5 pounds.
DuBose said it was only 15 -20 pounds.
They not only make alien spaceships light out there but that
also must include anywhere from 1 - 5 bodies depending on
whom you ask who claims to have seen the debris.
I wish the AF would teach my wife to pack a suitcase!
And, why do none of the gov't documents, including the Top
Secret Analysis know about the Roswell debris?
After all, David, their job was ". TO EXAMINE pattern
of "Flying Saucers" (hereinafter referred to as flying
objects) and to develop conclusions as to the possibility of
existence."
To develop conclusions as to the possibility of flying
saucers existing or not would give them a strong
need-to-know and they had the necessary clearances. Both of
those are all that are required even to enter a SCI or a
SAP.
So, why didn't they know about the debris?
The Analysis wasn't a rewrite for Vandenberg of the EOTS, if
it exists, the two documents are totally separate.
And in Blue Book Special Report # 14 there is the following
statement:
"It is emphasized that there was a complete lack of any
valid evidence consisting of physical matter in any case of
a reported unidentified aerial object... Therefore, on the
basis of this evaluation of the information, it is
considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports
of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study
represents observations of technological developments
outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge."
Why do a statistical analysis based on observations without
telling the folks that they are real?
Makes no sense, David.
>Another apparent shill job for Robert Todd by Twitch.
After you wrote this I contacted Todd and asked him what my
pay was, etc. If I'm gonna talk the talk and walk the walk,
I should get the benes!
Todd said that he didn't need a shill and thanked me for the
offer.
However, when Randle wishes to send some incorrect
information he quotes you! Remember what Randle sent
Moseley?
"Randle has kindly sent us a printout of a very lengthy
Internet debate between Karl Pflock and one David Rudiak, on
the subject of the Roswell Incident. The debate goes over
the same old ground, and is too long to summarize here. -
Editor."
How much does Randle pay you for being a shill, David?
Are there retirement benefits and a good health plan?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Scott A. Munro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:26:03 -0800, Bob & Louise
>> <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> > The Army didn't
>> > display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
>> > Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
>> > debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash site.
>> > That's more than ample time, and more than ample accessibility.
>>
>> But you are assuming that it occurred on the 2nd, or even that it (the
>> "explosion" from the "crash") happened at all. You cannot argue for
>> one assumption based on another.
>> Scott A. Munro
>
> Scott A. Munro,
> Even though there exists much confusion about the exact time-line of
> events of Roswell 47,
Even though there exists much confusion about whether or not
it happened?
> the fact remains that our government's first
> concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?"
Please post some evidence for this statement.
>By the
> time our foot-dragging military gives a response to a high-profile
> sighting, it has already set into place simulations of the event and,
> if need be, substitute artifacts.
Is that why the International UFO Museum at Roswell went and
got an affadavit from the owners of the land that the saucer
was supposed to have crashed on and they don't know anything
about it and doubt that it could have happened without their
knowledge?
Scott A. Munro
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:04:05 -0800, Bob & Louise
<lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Scott A. Munro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:26:03 -0800, Bob & Louise
>> <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> > The Army didn't
>> > display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
>> > Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
>> > debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash site.
>> > That's more than ample time, and more than ample accessibility.
>>
>> But you are assuming that it occurred on the 2nd, or even that it (the
>> "explosion" from the "crash") happened at all. You cannot argue for
>> one assumption based on another.
>> Scott A. Munro
>
> Scott A. Munro,
> Even though there exists much confusion about the exact time-line of
> events of Roswell 47, the fact remains that our government's first
> concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?"
I'd agree with this. When Washington heard of a "flying saucer" crash,
their first response was to clamp the secrecy lid down, because they
didn't know what had been found. It could have been anything; indeed,
the most popular theory at the time were that "flying saucers" were US
secret aircraft, or Soviet secret aircraft.
It is quite natural that the military brass would have wanted it kept
secret at least until they knew what it was.
>By the
> time our foot-dragging military gives a response to a high-profile
> sighting, it has already set into place simulations of the event and,
> if need be, substitute artifacts.
> Bob
Another assumption.
Bob & Louise
Scott A. Munro wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:04:05 -0800, Bob & Louise
> <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >By the
> > time our foot-dragging military gives a response to a high-profile
> > sighting, it has already set into place simulations of the event and,
> > if need be, substitute artifacts.
> > Bob
>
> Another assumption.
Scott A. Munro,
Whereas I believe in my interpretations and perceptions of events,
I should refrain from expressing them as "fact". You are correct in
labeling my assertions as "assumptions" because I (and probably
everyone else posting in these groups) do not have access to the real
inside discussions that go on behind closed military doors.
Bob
the_revealer
I'm working on this...
See http://www.webfuture.com/conspiracy
Bob & Louise wrote:
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Ramey has had only a few minutes to come up with the
> > supposed cover story and to have supposedly find the phoney
> > debris. Now, where did he find neoprene that had been out
> > in the sun for three weeks and a smashed ML-307 in these few
> > minutes?
> > There were no ML-307s at either RAAF or FWAAF!
> > No one keeps old neoprene rubber from weather balloons for
> > times when they might need to scuttle flying disc stories,
> > either.
> > So, where did he find exactly what he needed in such a short
> > time?
>
> Twitch,
> The explosion from the crash occured on July 2nd. The Army didn't
> display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
> Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
> debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash
> site.
> That's more than ample time, and more than ample accessibility.
> Bob
twi...@worldnet.att.net
DRu...@aol.com (David Rudiak) wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
<snip of part to be still checked on>
>>During this time, Ramey's phone is ringing off the hook with
>>questions about the flying disc.
>
>When did Ramey's phone start "ringing off the hook?" Let's look at some
>contemporary news stories. First, the New York Times, July 9, 1947:
>
> "Celestrial crockery had the Army up in the air for SEVERAL HOURS yesterday
> before an Army officer [warrant officer Irving Newton] explained that what a
> colleague thought was 'a flying disk' was nothing more than a battered Army
> weather balloon. ...WITHIN AN HOUR after Lieutenant Haught had given new
> impetus to the 'flying saucer' derby, his boss, Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey Roger
> Ramey, had a somewhat different version of 'the flying disk.' He said that
> while it was true it had been found on a ranch, no one had seen it in the
> air; it was 'of flimsy construction," apparently made 'of some sort of tin
> foil.' ...In Washington, Lieut. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, Deputy Chief of the
> Army Air Forces, hurried to his headquarters press section."
>
>So Ramey was putting out a different story WITHIN AN HOUR of the press release,
>and Newton didn't do his ID for SEVERAL HOURS. There is more corroboration
>below from other news stories.
Could it be, gasp!, that Ramey got tired of the questions
for which he had no answer and he phoned up RAAF and asked
what they had found?
We know that Ramey was smart enough to know how to use a
phone.
" In a telephone conversation with Army Air Force
Headquarters in Washington he described the object as a
"flimsy construction almost like a box." "
That certainly sounds like what Wilcox said that Brazel
described, doesn't it?
"seemed more or less like tinfoil." The rancher described
the disc as about as large as a safe in the sheriff's
office.
The safe is about three and one-half by four feet. "
Or what Brazel told the newspapers when they asked him:
"on June 14 he and 8-year-old son, Vernon were about 7 or 8
miles from the ranch house of the J.B. Foster ranch, which
he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright
wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough
paper and sticks."
And, we do know that Ramey knew how to use a phone.
><snip>
> This leaves a possible 15 minute or so gap corresponding to "within
>an hour" of the press release in which Vandenberg could have "hurried to his
>headquarters press section," to put in an appearance.
Could have?
And, activity reports located in Gen. Vandenberg's personal
papers stored in the Library of Congress indicate that on
July 7th, he was busy with a flying disc incident. It
involved Ellington Field, Texas and the Spokane depot. He
may have put his head in and said "Hi" to the reporters but
in only the few minutes he couldn't have done much. Except
possibly, after pulling his head out of the press room, to
have one of his ADCs phone Ramey and tell him to handle it.
After Vandenberg or one of his ADCs finished talking with
General Ramey The San Francisco Examiner phoned him.
General Ramey, in a seemingly jovial mood, stated "Everybody
in the country is trying to get trhough on this telephone."
>
>The Washington Post went into more detail of what Vandenberg did at the press
>section and what Ramey said. Compare to the NY Times story.
>
> "...under the personal direction of Lieut. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, acting AAF
> chief, who dropped into the Washington AAF public information headquarters in
Dropped into. That certainly doesn't sound like he is
terribly upset, worrying much, or wasting much time about
it.
>
> the midst of the excitement, they burned up the wires to Texas and New
> Mexico... They got from Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, Eighth Air Force Commander,
>
> a description of the object. It was 'of very flimsy construction -- almost
> like a box-kite', made of wood and with a cover 'like tinfoil'...
>
> "Ramey said he hadn't actually seen it himself as yet. He went to take a
> look, and called back that it was about 25 feet in diameter. He said he was
> shipping it on to Wright Field, Ohio, but would have one of the
> meteorological officers look at it first..."
>
>So according to this, Ramey was giving a description of the boxkite and tinfoil
>BEFORE he says he has even seen the material yet. After he says he has seen
>whatever, he claims it was about 25 feet in diameter, matching nothing in the
>photos later taken.
Ah, David, why not use all of the descriptions that were
released and not just the one that fits your version of the
"facts"?
"It would have had a diameter of about 20 to 25 feet if
reconstructed"
If reconstructed!
There are other descriptions showing essentially the same
thing.
And, it does match what was photographed later.
"apparently some sort of tin foil."
Which does match what was photographed later very well.
>He says all this within an hour after the press release, or
>BEFORE Marcel has arrived at Fort Worth. Marcel has barely taken off from
>Roswell. And clearly Irving Newton hasn't seen it yet. Ramey said he had yet
>to bring in a meteorological officer.
But, we do know that he had been phoning people, David.
What would you do if you were getting lots of phone calls
from reporters?
Wait until the debris arrived, or phone RAAF and maybe even
Wilcox and ask what they hell the thing looked like?
I'd phone and ask and I imagine that any intelligent general
would do the same.
<snip again for same reasons as mentioned above.>
>
>Another New York paper, N.Y. PM, added some additional information:
>
> "Ramey said he couldn't let anybody look at the thing or photograph it
> because Washington had clamped a 'security lid' on all but the sketchiest
> details."
>
>Therefore, clearly Ramey is saying all this BEFORE Newton or the photographer
>Johnson had come in yet.
Yep. Ramey, et. al. said that "It would have had a diameter
of about 20 to 25 feet if reconstructed..."
Of course, as you point out, he hadn't seen it yet.
Brazel had seen it and he stated:
"The balloon which held it up, if that was how it worked,
must have been about 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the
distance by the size of the room in which he sat."
>
> "'The object,' he said, 'is in my office right now and as far as I can see
> there is nothing to get excited about. It looks to me like THE REMNANT OF
> A WEATHER BALLOON AND A RADAR REFLECTOR.'"
>
>There's a direct, contemporaneous quote from Ramey very clearly stating that he
>was already identifying the whatever as a weather balloon/radar target (note the
>singular reference.) And amazingly, this non-weather officer general has no
>problems IDing a weather balloon and radar target.
Ah, David, this is a little dishonest since the weather
service rarely used these things.
They were used for gun-laying and, on rare occasions, for
special projects that needed very accurate high altitude
wind readings.
So, a non-weather officer is more likely to ID it than a
weather officer. A general would probably know it better
than a weather officer or an intelligence officer. A
general gets to see lots of dog and pony shows.
Newton had only seen one a few years before at the Battle of
Okinawa.
Why hadn't he seen once since then?
They were rarely used by weather personnel or other
non-artillery types.
>And he is saying all this
>well before Johnson and Newton get there.
>
The phone is a wonderful invention, is it not?
Except when you're in the shower.
>And here's another story from the San Francisco Examiner by Dick Pearce with yet
>another angle on all this and further corroboration of Ramey's early weather
>balloon story being put out within an hour of the press release:
>
> "Lt. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, deputy chief of the AAF, hurried to the AAF press
> section in Washington and personally took charge as newspapers and wire
> services clamored for details.
Personally took charge!
You have indicated that he may have had 10 to 15 minutes!
And, his personal papers don't show much about Roswell.
(Like nothing!) but they do show the Ellington UFO.
>
> "WITHIN AN HOUR telephone lines into sparse New Mexico were jammed... (The
> Examiner did not call Sheriff Wilcox. Surmising that the find had been
> flown to Brig. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, commanding general of the Eighth Air
> Force at fort Worth, Tex., The Examiner telephoned him. FIRST TO REACH
> HIM, The Examiner got a complete description of the 'disc' from him, together
> with his expressed suspicion that IT WAS JUST PART OF A WEATHER BALLOON. His
> description talled with that of radar reflectors sent up with weather
> balloons EVERY DAY at Oakland.)
What project used them at Oakland, David?
Or should we just assume that the Examiner is using
hyperbole?
And, the quotes posted below are accurate!
>
> "(As a result, The Examiner was able to give a prosaic name to the Army's
> saucer LONG BEFORE the Army inself corrected the boner of its public
> relations officer at Roswell.)
>
> "A weather officer attached to the base weather station at Fort Worth finally
> was called in, took one look at the tangled mess of aluminum foil, strings
> and wood and made definite identification.
>
> "Plans to fly it to the AAF laboratories at Wright Field, dayton, Ohio, were
> abandoned promptly."
>
>So again, we have Ramey IDing the whatever as a weather balloon/radar target
>within an hour or so of the press release.
Nope. He has a suspicion.
Based on what?
The description that he got in a phone call.
>If they were indeed first to reach
>Ramey, this may have been just before Vandenberg or his people called Ramey from
>the Pentagon PR office,
Just after.
>and well BEFORE Marcel could possibly arrive in Fort
>Worth. And again quite clearly, Newton has nowhere entered the picture at this
>time to make his own weather balloon/radar target ID. The Examiner story, like
>the others, indicates he was brought in later.
What is so surprising about a General who sees far more than
a Major of Intelligence knowing about radar targets that are
not used for intelligence work?
<snip as before>
>
>No, Ramey has THREE HOURS, not "a few minutes," to come up with phoney debris
>before reporter Johnson gets there to take pictures.
Isn't it funny that Marcel claimed that the reporters saw
some of the real debris then? Both in the Roswell Incident
and in the flick UFOs are Real!
And, in 1979, didn't DuBose just say in his FUFOR affadavit
that their was a coverup, nothing about swapping debris?
Hell, why bother swapping it if you've let the reporters see
some of the real debris?
And, where did Ramey get this debris?
What projects at FWAAF or RAAF used high-altitude weather
balloon (not pibalds) and radar targets?
None.
And, where do you go to gather neoprene that has been
sitting out in the Sun for three weeks?
You don't since no one keeps used balloons.
<snip>
>
>Where did Ramey get the balloon debris? As I've mentioned for about the
>millioneth time, every weather service in the country, civilian and military,
>used neoprene balloons, of all colors and sizes, including black ones and
>unpigmented ones. Hundreds of weather balloons were launched every day all over
>the country. No problems with a weather balloon.
Wrong. Most of these are pibalds of color and weather quite
differently than an unpigmented balloon.
There is a problem since most of the unpigmented balloons
were used for gun-laying. You don't lay guns in Ft. Worth.
The natives get so upset at all that artillery fire on their
houses.
And, no one keeps used unpigmented weather balloons. So,
where did he get one that was exposed to the sun for three
weeks. Exactly as if it were laying out in the Sun since
June 14th, which is what Brazel said and Marcel essentially
agreed with in Ft. Worth.
Further, why bother going to the trouble of getting an
unpigmented balloon when the weather service launched
hundreds of pibalds every day? What reporter would know the
difference?
Yet, they showed an unpigmented balloon which was not used
in FW or RAAF and one that had been out in the sun for three
weeks, just like Brazel claimed.
You got a big problem here.
>
>Newton was quoted in 1947 as saying the radar target could have come from any of
>80 weather stations.
Yet, he hadn't seen one in two years!
>The Army weather service near Wright Field was quoted
>three days before saying that the weather target recovered nearby at Circleville
>was used by EVERY weather service in the country.
And, the head of the Weather Service said that they only
used them on rare occasions! One would think he would know.
"For ordinary purposes, General Yates told a reporter, the
AAF uses balloon-borne radiosondes much on the order of
those employed by the weather bureau, tracking them with
radio direction finders. Those instruments consist of a
milky white balloon five or six feet in diameter with the
automatic radio transmitting apparatus suspended in a
package about cigar box size....
The weather bureau said it uses none of the radar target
balloons at land stations. Some are used from Coast Guard
vessels in the Atlantic, bureau officials siad, they
normally blow eastward toward Europe.
Between the army and the weather bureau, hundreds of weather
balloons WITHOUT THE METALLIC TARGET are released daily from
points all over the country." (Emphasis added)
So they launch hundreds of pigmented balloons without
metallic targets daily but the others are rarely used.
And, the ML-307 was only used normally for gun-laying and
not for weather service.
<snip>
>There are many possibilities as to where they could have gotten such debris. A
>balloon from another weather service could have been launched elsewhere and
>drifted into the Dallas/Fort Worth area, FWAAF could have been contacted, and
>somebody could have gone out to pick it up in days before all this.
The Weather service normally used pibalds, not unpigmented
neoprene. They also didn't use ML-307s.
See above.
>In fact,
>the day BEFORE the press release and Ramey's weather balloon, one of Ramey's
>officers at Fort Worth was already offering radar targets as a possible
>explanation for all the flying saucer reports.
Yep.
But, again, you are not posting all of the info.
General Ramey "I don't say these devices are what people
have called "discs."
And, Ivan R. Tannehill, said that such weather balloons had
been in use for many years and were unlikely to have been
mistaken "all over the country and in one week" for these
flying discs.
>
>For sure, identical radar targets were being used at White Sands, Alamogordo,
>and Kansas City. These are all within two hours plane ride from Fort Worth.
I can just see Ramey getting on the phone and asking the
commander of those places "Do you have a non-pigmented high
altitude balloon that has been out in the Sun for three
weeks? This is top secret and I need it immediately. I
want a jet to bring it to my office immediately, no
questions asked. If you don't, the MIBs'll get ya!"
>Jan Aldrich of Project 1947 and somebody with former military meteorological
>experience, has pointed out that artillery units also would have been using
>these targets all over the place that summer to chart wind currents prior to
>artillery practice. Aldrich stated that this included National Guard units
>practicing that summer, including at military bases where they normally wouldn't
>be found, and the normal Army weather people generally would not have been aware
>of what they were up to. One possible place where such artillery practice could
Could?
>have been going on was at Fort Ord, about 130 miles south of Fort Worth. If
>necessary, a radar target could have been flown in from there within an hour.
>There were about half a dozen other AAF bases within Texas, all of which were
>other possible sources for radar targets, even if they didn't have them at
>FWAAF.
They didn't have them at FWAAF or RAAF. Further, they
aren't likely to phone and ask for them without telling why
the 8th AF suddenly needed one on an emergency basis.
"Oh, we want to simulate a crashed alien spacecraft.
Nothing really important, please get one up here on an
emergency basis."
Get real.
Further, they would also have to ask for an unpigmented
weather balloon, just like Mogul uses, that had been left
out in the Sun for three weeks.
<snip of conspiracy theory of release and debunk which the
security people would have had kittens over. You don't
release this sort of info when a crashed alien spacecraft is
being recovered>
>
>> Now, where did he find neoprene that had been out
>>in the sun for three weeks
>
>And once again Twitch begs the question.
Nope, twitch asks the question, Rudiak begs off from
answering.
>He assumes a priori this was neoprene
>from Mogul and that it was exposed to the sun for nearly five weeks (the time
>between the supposed Mogul launch and the recovery.)
Nope. Brazel said he found in on June 14th.
Then we have "Sheriff George Wilcox of Roswell said the disc
was found about three weeks ago"
Then we have Bessie's tale of the smell.
>
>I suppose Twitch keeps using the "three week" figure, because Mogul engineer
>Charles Moore is generally quoted as saying that neoprene turns black when
>exposed to the sun after about three weeks, and the balloon material in the
>photos has a darkened appearance.
Nope.
Twitch keeps using the "three week" figure because that is
what Brazel said.
Twitch keeps using the "three week" figure because that is
what Wilcox said Brazel said.
Moore is just corroborating evidence.
> But Moore has also been quoted as saying that
>neoprene turned "dark gray" after only a "few days" (A.F. affidavit).
Yep, but he says that is incorrect.
>Furthermore, Moore has been quoted and given demos showing that neoprene exposed
>to the sun for only two or three weeks, not even five weeks, has done more than
>turn blackish.
What demos are these? Moore claims that the only tests he
has run show that unpigmented neoprene exposed to the sun
for three weeks are smokey gray.
<snip>
>But the balloon lying in a folded heap at Ramey's feet in the photos appears to
>be relatively intact and not fragmented.
Is this based on your experience as an intelligence officer
who knew all about neoprene balloons?
"After examining the Roswell photographs, Professor Moore
concluded that the depth of darkening of the balloon
material was consistent with an early June release."
Most of what you see at Ramey's feet are tin foil from an
ML-307. Certainly not a full sized balloon that is
relatively intact.
> It doesn't fit Mac Brazel's
>description of "smoky gray" "rubber strips" which he claimed was scattered over
>200 yards and which he rolled into a bundle.
It is a fairly decent and even good match between the photo
and the description. Just ask Moore.
>Nor is it a good fit for Moore's
>brittle "ashlike" neoprene left in the sun for many weeks.
Moore says that it is.
"After examining the Roswell photographs, Professor Moore
concluded that the depth of darkening of the balloon
material was consistent with an early June release."
>In fact, Ramey
>repeatedly refers to the balloon in the singular and so does the FBI telegram.
>
Since it appears that there is only one balloon there, why
shouldn't he?
>So what we have here was likely one of two things. Either it was a relatively
>intact nonpigmented neoprene balloon that has been left in the sun for a few
>days to a week, enabling it to turn a "dark gray," but not deteriorate to the
>point of becoming brittle and ashlike.
Nope. Not according to Moore.
"After examining the Roswell photographs, Professor Moore
concluded that the depth of darkening of the balloon
material was consistent with an early June release."
>Or it was a black or dark, pigmented
>balloon, also a part of the weather service arsenal. You can see a balloon
>cluster of these lofting a Navy weather target, published in the Atlanta
>Constitution two days later following a Navy demonstration.
>
Black pigmented balloons don't turn smokey.
>However, what is shown in the photos does NOT match a balloon left in the hot
>New Mexico sun for over a month much less "three weeks."
Funny, according to the person who should know, it does.
"After examining the Roswell photographs, Professor Moore
concluded that the depth of darkening of the balloon
material was consistent with an early June release."
>That would have lost
>its flexibility and been broken into brittle pieces, not lying folded in a heap
>on the floor.
>
Not according to Moore. "it took a few months for the
balloon material to deteriorate to the point where it
resembled charred paper... After examining the Roswell
photographs, Professor Moore concluded that the depth of
darkening of the balloon material was consistent with an
early June release."
>> and a smashed ML-307 in these few
>>minutes?
>
>>There were no ML-307s at either RAAF or FWAAF!
>
>Twitch keeps saying this but he has never documented it.
Ah, David, you essentially agreed with this above. But, it
has been documented.
>Newton in 1947 said 80
>weather stations used these targets and what was in Ramey's office could have
>come from any of them.
Isn't it funny then that he hadn't seen one for two years?
That Gen. Yates said that they were rarely used by the
weather service?
>The Army weather service near Wright Field had them and
>demoed them for the press and said several days before that EVERY weather
>station used them. <snip>
>
They use pigmented balloons without metallic radar
detectors, David.
"For ordinary purposes, General Yates told a reporter, the
AAF uses balloon-borne radiosondes much on the order of
those employed by the weather bureau, tracking them with
radio direction finders. Those instruments consist of a
milky white balloon five or six feet in diameter with the
automatic radio transmitting apparatus suspended in a
package about cigar box size....
The weather bureau said it uses none of the radar target
balloons at land stations. Some are used from Coast Guard
vessels in the Atlantic, bureau officials siad, they
normally blow eastward toward Europe.
Between the army and the weather bureau, hundreds of weather
balloons WITHOUT THE METALLIC TARGET are released daily from
points all over the country." (Emphasis added)
>That's just what I know about. I don't know where Ramey got his radar target,
>but he definitely wasn't restricted to something launched from Alamogordo, N.M.
Oh no.
But, they weren't in common use by the weather service and
neither FWAAF nor RAAF used them. They were used by
artillery units. However, no one keeps unpigmented balloons
that have been out in the sun for three weeks or crashed
ML-307s.
>
>If Twitch wants to ask were Ramey got his radar target, he might just as well
>ask where the counterintelligence team got their radar targets for a demo launch
>the following day at Alamogordo. Mogul engineer Charles Moore said they had
>pretty much given up on radar targets and doesn't recall that they left any
>balloon equipment behind, radar targets or neoprene balloons, when they packed
>up and left the previous morning. If the counterintelligence team could get
>them at Alamogordo, they could get them at Fort Worth.
>
They had more time and further, Alamogordo and White Sands
both used them.
However, David doesn't mention that the test wasn't done by
counterintelligence, or even technically by the AF, but by
Watson Labs! And, what did Watson Labs work on?
Project Mogul!
Major Pritchard told the reporters:
"We use the balloons rather than aircraft in the experiment
because it is slower in the air and can be more readily
studied and followed... It goes higher than the eye can see
and a radar set is employed to follow its course."
The experiment? And, what experiment was Watson Labs
working on?
Project Mogul!
Where better to hide something that a lot of people would
see than in plain view!
>>No one keeps old neoprene rubber from weather balloons for
>>times when they might need to scuttle flying disc stories,
>>either.
>
>A valid point, but Twitch again begs the question by assuming the neoprene was
>"old" as in his usual mantra of "three weeks old."
Nope. Twitch is using the professional knowledge of Prof.
Moore knowing how fond of ancient memories David is.
Prof Moore said it looked like his balloons that had been
out in the sun for three weeks.
Brazel said he found it three weeks earlier.
Wilcox said that Brazel said he had found it three weeks
earlier.
>Instead it could have been a
>relatively fresh, recovered black pigmented neoprene balloon that came from
>FWAAF, like those shown in the Atlanta Constitution, or a recently launched
>nonpigmented balloon, recovered after being out for a few days in the sun where
>it could turn a dark gray, as per Charles Moore's AF affidavit. The junk could
>have been laying around ready for use in a recovery yard at FWAAF.
>
Not according to Prof. Moore.
And, Moore's description fits what Brazel and Wilcox both
said.
>>So, where did he find exactly what he needed in such a short
>>time?
>
>Once you realize he had at least three hours instead of "minutes," there are a
>lot of possibilities.
Of course, he just phoned up a neighoring base, that wasn't
under the 8th AF, and told them he needed a balloon that had
been left out in the sun for three weeks and a crumpled
ML-307 on an emergency basis, it was all top secret, and
don't ask any questions or the MIBs will get them!
<snip>
Harry Bosch
David Rudiak wrote:
>
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> >DRu...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Article is from one of David's articles of several months
> >ago and I just happened to run across it again and decided
> >to check his "facts".
..... entire discussion deleted as irrelevant .....
Hi twitch.
I totally deleted the entire discussion of Rudiak's BS as irrelevant.
It is totally meaningless unless he can imply that the below
description of the "Roswell debris" could possibly be a
"spaceship" or any other device operated by aliens, except
maybe a RADAR balloon and target. I have included the whole
news item, in case there is any question.
Quoted from the ROSWELL DAILY RECORD:
Roswell Daily Record - July 9, 1947
Harassed Rancher who Located
'Saucer' Sorry He Told About It
W.W. Brazel, 48, Lincoln county rancher living 30 miles south
east of Corona, today told his story of finding what the army at first
described as a flying disk, but the publicity which attended his find
caused him to add that if he ever found anything short of a bomb he sure
wasn't going to say anything about it.
Brazel was brought here late yesterday by W.E. Whitmore, of
radio station KGFL, had his picture taken and gave an interview to the
Record and Jason Kellahin, sent here from the Albuquerque bureau of
the Associated Press to cover the story. The picture he posed for was
sent out over the AP telephoto wire sending machine specially set up
in the Record office by R. D. Adair, AP wire chief sent here for the
sole purpose of getting out the picture and that of sheriff George
Wilcox, to whom Brazel originally gave the information of his find.
Brazel related that on June 14 he and 8-year-old son, Vernon
were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J.B. Foster ranch,
which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage
made up on (sic) rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.
(my note: A spaceship made of "rubber strips, tinfoil, tough paper
and sticks"?)
At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he
did not pay much attenion to it. But he did remark about what he had
seen and on July 4 he, his wife, Vernon, and a daughter Betty, age 14,
went back to the spot and gathered up quite a bit of the debris.
The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he
wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these.
Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential
like" that he might have found a flying disk.
Wilcox got in touch with the Roswell Army Air Field and Maj.
Jesse A. Marcel and a man in plain clothes accompanied him home,
where they picked up the rest of the pieces of the "disk" and went
to his home to try to reconstruct it.
According to Brazel they simply could not reconstruct it at all.
They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and could not
find any way to put it back together so that it would fit.
(my note: "they tried to make a kite of it" don't sound like a
spaceship to me}
Then Major Marcel brought it to Roswell and that was the last
he heard of it until the story broke that he had found a flying disk.
Brazel said that he did not see it fall from the sky and did
not see it before it was torn up, so he did not know the size or shape
it might have been, but he thought it might have been about as large
as a table top. The balloon which held it up, if that was how it
worked, must have been about 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the
distance by the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was
smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in
diameter.
****** Begin description (my note)
When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches
thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long
and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot
would have weighed maybe five pounds.
There was no sign of any metal in the area which might
have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellors of
any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto
some of the tinfoil.
There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument,
although there were letters on some of the parts. Considerable
scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been
used in the construction.
(my note: "Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers
printed upon it had been used in the construction." Scotch tape?
Now I wonder where them itty bitty aliens, with their 5 pound
spaceship got Scotch Tape.)
No strings or wire were to be found but there were some
eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment
may have been used.
****** End description (my note)
(my note: "When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches
thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long
and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot
would have weighed maybe five pounds." and "There was no sign of
any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine
and no sign of any propellors of any kind, although at least one
paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil.") now this sure
don't sound like any kind spaceship I could imagine)
Brazel said that he had previously found two weather
balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not
in any way resemble either of these.
(my note: I wonder if this is because "weather balloons" don't
use tinfoil radar deflectors.)
"I am sure what I found was not any weather observation
balloon," he said. "But if I find anything else besides a bomb
they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything
about it."
(my note: "A five pound space ship made of sticks, and foil, and
floral tape, held together with scotch tape? Oh, my!"
My opinion, but damned if I can see how this debris could
constitute a "spaceship".
Rudiak is trying very hard to make something out of nothing.
All argument about whether it was the real debris in Ramey's
office or any thing that happened with the debris past the
point of the above description date is moot.
Regards,
Harry
--
========================================
"A five pound space ship made of sticks,
and foil,and floral tape? Oh, my!"
The Roswell debris.
har...@chatlink.com
========================================
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com> wrote:
>David Rudiak wrote:
>>
>> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> >DRu...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >Article is from one of David's articles of several months
>> >ago and I just happened to run across it again and decided
>> >to check his "facts".
>
>..... entire discussion deleted as irrelevant .....
As good a description of one of David's discussions as any.
>
>Hi twitch.
>
Greetings oh senior sp00k, esteemed and loved by Dr. Frager.
>I totally deleted the entire discussion of Rudiak's BS as irrelevant.
That is undoubtedly better than reading it.
>
>It is totally meaningless unless he can imply that the below
>description of the "Roswell debris" could possibly be a
>"spaceship" or any other device operated by aliens, except
>maybe a RADAR balloon and target. I have included the whole
>news item, in case there is any question.
>
<snip>
>They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and could not
>find any way to put it back together so that it would fit.
>
>(my note: "they tried to make a kite of it" don't sound like a
>spaceship to me}
I've always liked that particular line myself. The thought
of a major in the AAF and a Captain both sitting down with a
beer and trying to construct a kite out of a crashed alien
spacecraft somehow appeals to my sense of humor.
I hope that they removed the alien bodies first!
<snip>
> When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
>and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches
>thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long
>and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot
>would have weighed maybe five pounds.
Maybe they had left the anti-gravity portion of the drive
on?
<snip>
>Considerable
>scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been
>used in the construction.
>
>(my note: "Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers
>printed upon it had been used in the construction." Scotch tape?
>Now I wonder where them itty bitty aliens, with their 5 pound
>spaceship got Scotch Tape.)
Maybe they had just finished a war also and were forced to
make do with equipment supplied by the lowest bidder.
Although, I wasn't aware that the 3M company was into
interstellar craft.
Maybe they crashed so often that the 3M company decided not
to advertise all the uses for scotch tape?
<snip>
> Brazel said that he had previously found two weather
>balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not
>in any way resemble either of these.
>
>(my note: I wonder if this is because "weather balloons" don't
>use tinfoil radar deflectors.)
Nor unpigmented balloons.
<snip>
>My opinion, but damned if I can see how this debris could
>constitute a "spaceship".
Well, if you squint just right and drink lots of beer...
>
>Rudiak is trying very hard to make something out of nothing.
>All argument about whether it was the real debris in Ramey's
>office or any thing that happened with the debris past the
>point of the above description date is moot.
>
Regards.
Harry Bosch
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com> wrote:
>
> >David Rudiak wrote:
> >>
> >> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >DRu...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Article is from one of David's articles of several months
> >> >ago and I just happened to run across it again and decided
> >> >to check his "facts".
> >
> >..... entire discussion deleted as irrelevant .....
>
> >
> >Hi twitch.
> >
>
> Greetings oh senior sp00k, esteemed and loved by Dr. Frager.
Well, you too could gain fame and fortune by the good graces of
DOCTOR DICK. You are just going to have to try harder.
> >I totally deleted the entire discussion of Rudiak's BS as irrelevant.
>
> That is undoubtedly better than reading it.
Yep, I don't like to cause the readers of this NG any more
pain than I have to.
> >It is totally meaningless unless he can imply that the below
> >description of the "Roswell debris" could possibly be a
> >"spaceship" or any other device operated by aliens, except
> >maybe a RADAR balloon and target. I have included the whole
> >news item, in case there is any question.
> >
> <snip>
> >They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and could not
> >find any way to put it back together so that it would fit.
> >
> >(my note: "they tried to make a kite of it" don't sound like a
> >spaceship to me}
>
> I've always liked that particular line myself. The thought
> of a major in the AAF and a Captain both sitting down with a
> beer and trying to construct a kite out of a crashed alien
> spacecraft somehow appeals to my sense of humor.
Well, maybe with enough beer. . .but how much wind does it take
to fly a 5 pound kite?
> I hope that they removed the alien bodies first!
You know! I was wondering about that. Isn't that about the
time that Barbie & Ken showed up?
> <snip>
> > When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
> >and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches
> >thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long
> >and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot
> >would have weighed maybe five pounds.
>
> Maybe they had left the anti-gravity portion of the drive
> on?
I don't think so. If they were using the rubber band wind
up antigravity super duper deflector (which seems likely with
all of the rubber debris) it was broke and wouldn't operate
correctly would it?
> <snip>
> >Considerable
> >scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been
> >used in the construction.
> >
> >(my note: "Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers
> >printed upon it had been used in the construction." Scotch tape?
> >Now I wonder where them itty bitty aliens, with their 5 pound
> >spaceship got Scotch Tape.)
>
> Maybe they had just finished a war also and were forced to
> make do with equipment supplied by the lowest bidder.
>
> Although, I wasn't aware that the 3M company was into
> interstellar craft.
It was probably another one of those government cover-ups.
> Maybe they crashed so often that the 3M company decided not
> to advertise all the uses for scotch tape?
Well, DOCTOR DICK did say something about having evidence of
many, many alien spaceship crashes.
> <snip>
> > Brazel said that he had previously found two weather
> >balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did not
> >in any way resemble either of these.
> >
> >(my note: I wonder if this is because "weather balloons" don't
> >use tinfoil radar deflectors.)
>
> Nor unpigmented balloons.
Nor rubber wind up antigravity devices.
> <snip>
> >My opinion, but damned if I can see how this debris could
> >constitute a "spaceship".
>
> Well, if you squint just right and drink lots of beer...
If I drink lots of beer, you know I am going to have to squint
like hell just to find my way home.
> >Rudiak is trying very hard to make something out of nothing.
> >All argument about whether it was the real debris in Ramey's
> >office or any thing that happened with the debris past the
> >point of the above description date is moot.
Or seagulls of a feather. . .
You three twitches have a very nice weekend.
Regards.
dr...@greatland.net
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:23:20 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> > The Army didn't
>>> > display it's ML-307 pieces until July 8th. That means that the
>>> > Army had six days (and access to all of America) to come up with
>>> > debris that they could pawn off as being from the Roswell crash site.
>>> > That's more than ample time, and more than ample accessibility.
>>> But you are assuming that it occurred on the 2nd, or even that it (the
>>> "explosion" from the "crash") happened at all. You cannot argue for
>>> one assumption based on another.
Twitch, you are also arguing from a speculative viewpoint. It is
undisputed that the military had its hands on some of Brazel's debris
by the 6th at the latest. That leaves a minimum of a 2 day window in
which to contrive and execute their cover-up - a remarkably easy task
considering the circumstances. Just a few days earlier there had been
a newspaper report about a weather balloon being (briefly) confused
for a UFO, and since the AF offered rewards for the return of their
downed balloons, they certainly had several wrecked ones to choose
from stored in various parts of the country.
>> Even though there exists much confusion about the exact time-line of
>> events of Roswell 47,
>Even though there exists much confusion about whether or not
>it happened?
According to polls, there are fewer people who are "confused" about
whether or not it happened than there are those who are not. The only
"confusion" regarding whether something unusual happened I see comes
from debunkers and those who are not familiar with the evidence.
>> the fact remains that our government's first
>> concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?"
>Please post some evidence for this statement.
Read the reports from Projects Sign, Grudge and Bluebook. Review the
findings and circumstances surrounding the Robertson Panel and the
Condon Committee. Reference whatever you can referring to Moon Dust
and Blue Fly. Read any of the Roswell books. Read Ruppelt's book or
any of Hynek's books. All of this literature leads one to the
conclusion that the military's first priority is indeed covering up
the evidence, by whatever means necessary.
>> By the
>> time our foot-dragging military gives a response to a high-profile
>> sighting, it has already set into place simulations of the event and,
>> if need be, substitute artifacts.
>Is that why the International UFO Museum at Roswell went and
>got an affadavit from the owners of the land that the saucer
>was supposed to have crashed on and they don't know anything
>about it and doubt that it could have happened without their
>knowledge?
You're picking and choosing again Twitch. You picked the 2nd Ragsdale
story, which is readily apparent (except perhaps to Friedman) to be a
lie. This is particularly annoying since you have already stated
clearly that you believe the story to be a lie yourself. This is no
revelation to anyone, just an example of how the dollars involved are
starting to taint the evidence. Your statement is as deliberately
misleading as anything the AF has presented.
drew
twi...@worldnet.att.net
dr...@greatland.net wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:23:20 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>Twitch, you are also arguing from a speculative viewpoint.
Nope. I'm arguing from the facts.
>It is
>undisputed that the military had its hands on some of Brazel's debris
>by the 6th at the latest.
Undisputed?
Funny, all of the 1947 documents and articles show something
totally different.
"Wilcox said that Brizell does not have a telephone and so
did not report finding the disc until the day before
yesterday. (The 7th) Brizell (sic) told the sheriff he
didn't know just what the disc was, but that at first it
appeared to be a weather meter. "
So, Wilcox says that Brazel came in on the 7th.
"Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk. "
Monday was the 7th.
How did the military get this debris on the 6th when Brazel
didn't come into town until the 7th?
<snip>
>>> Even though there exists much confusion about the exact time-line of
>>> events of Roswell 47,
>
>>Even though there exists much confusion about whether or not
>>it happened?
>
>According to polls, there are fewer people who are "confused" about
>whether or not it happened than there are those who are not. The only
>"confusion" regarding whether something unusual happened I see comes
>from debunkers and those who are not familiar with the evidence.
What evidence are you referring to? All the actual evidence
doesn't support you.
>
>>> the fact remains that our government's first
>>> concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?"
>
>>Please post some evidence for this statement.
>
>Read the reports from Projects Sign, Grudge and Bluebook. Review the
>findings and circumstances surrounding the Robertson Panel and the
>Condon Committee.
Yep. They all came to the conclusion that there weren't
nothing of real interest in UFOs.
<snip>
>>> By the
>>> time our foot-dragging military gives a response to a high-profile
>>> sighting, it has already set into place simulations of the event and,
>>> if need be, substitute artifacts.
>
>>Is that why the International UFO Museum at Roswell went and
>>got an affadavit from the owners of the land that the saucer
>>was supposed to have crashed on and they don't know anything
>>about it and doubt that it could have happened without their
>>knowledge?
>
>You're picking and choosing again Twitch. You picked the 2nd Ragsdale
>story, which is readily apparent (except perhaps to Friedman) to be a
>lie. This is particularly annoying since you have already stated
>clearly that you believe the story to be a lie yourself.
Nope. That affadavit is regarding the first Ragsdale site!
>This is no
>revelation to anyone, just an example of how the dollars involved are
>starting to taint the evidence. Your statement is as deliberately
>misleading as anything the AF has presented.
>
Sorry, Drew but you obviously aren't acquainted with the
evidence. I'm referring to the first Ragsdale site!
Let's look at the quality of the evidence that isn't
normally presented showing that the first Ragsdale site and
the Kaufmann site aren't real.
Jim McKnight, whose family owned the Ragsdale/Kaufmann
memorial "saucer crash site", in a sworn statement said that
"No one in my family had any knowledge of such crash or
military retrieval. If a coyote crossed that ranch, my dad
or uncle would likely see his tracks. I cannot believe that
a convoy of Army trucks and cars could have come and gone
without them noticing....
during the 1950s I rode horseback all over both pastures
around the alleged crash site on a number of occasions...
there were not any roads west from the ranch house. It was
not until the early 1960s that my aunt hired a bulldozer to
build a crossing on the Macho ( a dry creek that you had to
cross to get to the alleged crash site)...
In addition to our own ranch, it was customary to exchange
labor with our neighbors. We had many discussions and some
included the military, their practice bombing ranges and
crashed airplanes. Never, never did the subject of such an
event as the Roswell incident come up for discussion. I know
the people who settled in that harsh environment...
No amount of military threats would have silenced them,
especially when they talked among themselves...
I do not have an axe to grind nor a profit to be made from
this incident."
An Army convoy would have had to pass with 200 yards of the
McKnight ranch house so it is highly unlikely that they
wouldn't have known about the operation.
In a later interview, McKnight stated that "to get to the
alleged impact site a convoy would have had to get across
the Macho which was all but impossible in 1947."
This is backed up by the Randle/Schmitt Press Conference
when Randle/Schmitt took the press to the site on 25 March
1994. The press had to transfer to 4 wheel drive vehicles
to cover the rocky drive to the "impact site". And, the
drive was impossible in 1947!
Remember, we are talking here of the first Ragsdale crash
site which was the one that Randle still likes and Kaufmann
corroborated.
Albuquerque Journalist William P. Barrett researched the
Roswell incident and published his results in the Forbes
magazine and 'Crosswinds".
He wrote about some of the people he interviewed:
Bill Edgar, who worked as a farm hand near the first
Ragsdale site in 1947: "It never happened. I never heard
about saucers or soldiers moving around."
Dorothy Epps, whose family owned land only 1/2 mile from the
first Ragsdale site: "I'm quite sure we would have heard
about it if it were true. It's all a hoax."
"Barrett learned that none of the above have been
interviewed ..."
Randle/Schmitt in the Jan./Feb. IUR wrote "Jim Ragsdale, who
had lived in Roswell for many years and has been telling his
crash story...since soon after the event."
Barrett interviewed Ragsdale's former wife and she said that
he had never told her about a crashed saucer, but she said
she once heard her husband, while drunk, tell the tale to a
friend.
Barrett also interviewed Ragsdales former wife.
So, there was no way for the Army convoy to just pull up to
the alleged crashed saucer site since there was no way
across the Macho until the 1960s!
Now, tell us again, about how good the evidence is for the
first Ragsdale impact site.
Bob & Louise
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> So, Wilcox says that Brazel came in on the 7th.
>
> "Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
> went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
> confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk. "
>
> Monday was the 7th.
>
> How did the military get this debris on the 6th when Brazel
> didn't come into town until the 7th?
Twitch,
You're believing that our military wasn't aware of the crash
until being told about it by Brazel. I believe that our
military knew about it immediately. Also, you're believing that
death threats from the military to the witnesses aren't a factor
in subsequent witness commentary. I believe that they are.
Bob
John & Susan Hutchins
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:22:52 -0800, Bob & Louise
<lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>
>> How did the military get this debris on the 6th when Brazel
>> didn't come into town until the 7th?
>
> Twitch,
> You're believing that our military wasn't aware of the crash
> until being told about it by Brazel. I believe that our
> military knew about it immediately. Also, you're believing that
> death threats from the military to the witnesses aren't a factor
> in subsequent witness commentary. I believe that they are.
> Bob
I have a little problem with this scenario, Bob. If the military
knew there was a "UFO" crash, why go to all the trouble
of salting the ranch with Mogul Balloon debris, and having
Mac discover it? Are you claiming it was more than happenstance
that Mac was on that particular part of the Foster Ranch some
three weeks (judged from the condition of the neoprene) after
an alleged saiucer crash? Is there any evidence for this, or is it
merely speculation?
Is there any credible evidence that the military threatened anyone?
If so, how do you explain the first reports of the debris, the
subsequeunt announcement that a "flying disk" had been found
(the Army's own PIO report), and the fact that the report was allowed
to be published in the first place? If the military knew it was a UFO
to begin with, why not clamp a compplete lid of secrecy on the whole
thing?
If the Army had known about the crash, why not pick up the debris,
leaving the place picked clean? Why haul three week old balloon
debris to the Foster ranch in the first place? If we accept the
gubmint knew about the crash in the first place, then what possible
reason could there be for all the smoke and mirrors that followed?
John Hutchins
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> So, Wilcox says that Brazel came in on the 7th.
>>
>> "Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
>> went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
>> confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk. "
>>
>> Monday was the 7th.
>>
>> How did the military get this debris on the 6th when Brazel
>> didn't come into town until the 7th?
>
> Twitch,
> You're believing that our military wasn't aware of the crash
> until being told about it by Brazel.
Where is your evidence that this isn't true?
>I believe that our
> military knew about it immediately.
What? On June 14th?
>Also, you're believing that
> death threats from the military to the witnesses aren't a factor
> in subsequent witness commentary. I believe that they are.
What death threats? There is certainly no evidence for any
such things.
Bob & Louise
Twitch,
"No evidence" of death threats???? Tell me Twitch, when you study
investigative accounts of the Roswell ufo story, do you quote only
the sentences that you believe support your skepticism and ignore
reports like these?:
The main part of the craft apparently came down some distance from the "debris field" at
the
Brazel ranch. Researchers were only recently able to confirm this second site because
few people
knew about it. According to witness testimony, this is also the site where the bodies
were found.
Most of the witnesses to this site have not, in fear of government reprisal, allowed
their names to
be used. A prestigious law firm has recently been retained to provide legal counsel to
any such
witnesses who might consider going public with their testimony. Attorneys from the firm
have
already met with several Roswell witnesses.
In addition to Glenn Dennis, other witnesses were physically threatened or intimidated.
According
to members of Sheriff Wilcox's family, he was told by the military, in the presence of
his wife, that
he and his entire family would be killed if he ever spoke about what he had seen. The
rancher who
originally discovered the wreckage, Mac Brazel, was sequestered by the military for
almost a
week and sworn to secrecy. He never spoke about the incident again, even to his family.
In the
months following the incident, his son, Bill Brazel, found and collected a few "scraps"
of material,
which he kept in a cigar box. The material was eventually confiscated by the military.
Copied from: "Roswell: The Whole Story"
by Kent Jeffrey
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> >Also, you're believing that
>> > death threats from the military to the witnesses aren't a factor
>> > in subsequent witness commentary. I believe that they are.
>>
>> What death threats? There is certainly no evidence for any
>> such things.
>
> Twitch,
> "No evidence" of death threats????
I'm afraid not, Bob.
>Tell me Twitch, when you study
> investigative accounts of the Roswell ufo story, do you quote only
> the sentences that you believe support your skepticism and ignore
> reports like these?:
>
Bob, would you care to discuss the fact that the author you
are quoting has now disowned all of the material and denies
that Roswell ever happened?
Now, since it never happened, why did the military make
threats?
Answer, they didn't.
For instance, Glenn Dennis, one of the people quoted, has
been shown rather conclusively to have lied. As have Jim
Ragsdale, Gerald Anderson, Frank Kaufmann, etc.
Bob & Louise
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Bob, would you care to discuss the fact that the author you
> are quoting has now disowned all of the material and denies
> that Roswell ever happened?
> Now, since it never happened, why did the military make
> threats?
> Answer, they didn't.
> For instance, Glenn Dennis, one of the people quoted, has
> been shown rather conclusively to have lied. As have Jim
> Ragsdale, Gerald Anderson, Frank Kaufmann, etc.
Twitch,
This whole debate between "skeptics" and "believers" is going
nowhere because both sides are just discrediting each others'
sources of information. Result: No reliable information exists,
therefore, there can be no debate.
Bob
Andrea Chen
Bob:
You're wrong. Reliable sources do exist. I'm one of them, the reason
is that I actually go out and deal with aliens. But ok, you're not me,
you're too scared too abduct an alien and you don't know how to drive
deal that will let you steal their technology (which I employ on this
group), but this is your dream. Where do you begin?
With logic. Make me make a couple of points which will help you to see
what's important.
1) If the govt was to reveal that they had contact with aliens, then
many people would say that this was a secret plot to do something. Many
of the people who now believe that the govt has contact with aliens
would start to believe that it didn't. They would pull a William
Cooper. Because the important thing isn't aliens, it's a big secret
that our govt (and all the siniister forces which control it) won't
reveal to us. So the issue would rapidly develop the same confusion it
has now.
2) The aliens themselves are also encouraging confusion. This is true
even if you're "scientific" and only believe in flying saucers. Why do
they sometimes drive around with lights at night? They don't care if
they're been seen. They can hide themselves if they chose to, but often
they don't. Yet they don't leave any intangible proof such as a flight
over the Olympic games. They sow confusion. If their contact is
limited to saucer visits, they knowingly do this in a way designed to
encourage uncertainty and social debate.
3) If you go further and believe that the aliens are leaving crop
circles then once again they leave messages but not clearcut proof of
their validity. Abductions involve similar reality. The claims that
abductees make about genetic experiments include lots and lots which is
biological nonsense. If the aliens are in fact invading people's minds
in their dreams (more likely than they are beaming them to walls and
taking them to distant galaxies and underground caverns) then they are
feeding them some sort of strange alchemical vision in which the
physical acts (may) symbolize something acting on a different level.
I could go on and I often have. But the main point is that aliens are
about confusion and mind games, they are about shifts in reality. These
effects created by our own capacity for self manipulation. Yet people
refuse to stop! As you noted any statement made by one side will be
refuted by the other. Unless one does some very deep scholastic study
(with a much higher chance of fraud than in most areas), it's almost
impossible to make a fully objective opinion on any one case. It
becomes a matter of trust and the buffs are right in saying that even
well educated and essentially honest skeptics will slant things to make
sense within their "paradigm," but then again the buffs don't usually so
harshly attack those of their own side who give nonsense arguments. For
example somebody said the large eyes of the aliens were similar to those
of a preying mantis in their reasons for origin. This person obviously
didn't count the number of neurons in an insect and a much higher level
of being, while general logics may be similar there are very big nature
in the mechanics of things. An insect needs vast eyes if it's going to
have even rudimentary sight. The comparison just makes no sense, it's
surreal. I'm not saying that there are no reasons that an alien species
should have big eyes (some actually do though it's primarily because
others regard it as sexy), but this analogy just popped out of the hair
left me baffled, it's the kind of troll I dream of creating but it was
sincere. An equally dubious claim was that the fragile greys evolved in
the high pressure of deep water.
Nonsense like this is spouted and given some credibility in UFOLOGY
circles, yet the one aspect that can be studied (and which I assure you
does lead to a partial answer) which is the mythological, the trickster
madness (sometimes cruel, but contrary to d4 also easy to seize hold of)
which shifts the mind and breaks for good and bad the ordinary
perceptions of reality. This can be studied and analyzed. It's there.
Yet buffs always want to change the subject, they want to believe
whatever outlandish claim which comes along or to believe some eminent
UFOLOGIST with a "small number of solid cases" who happens to disagree
with some other eminent UFOLOISTS on which cases these are
specifically. UFOLOGY is of itself a mind rape. This is the important
part of the game. This is the one that the aliens feed and if you
follow it through you will find them. Because in part you are alien in
ways you can't understand.
-Nancy Ambassador To The Zetas-
Nick Humphries
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:47:43 -0800, Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
By george I think you've got it. And it was the "beleivers" who discredited
Glenn Dennis, IIRC...
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.clara.net, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
-------------------------------------------------------
The Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years
http://www.the-den.clara.net/ys/cover.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Bob, would you care to discuss the fact that the author you
>> are quoting has now disowned all of the material and denies
>> that Roswell ever happened?
>> Now, since it never happened, why did the military make
>> threats?
>> Answer, they didn't.
>> For instance, Glenn Dennis, one of the people quoted, has
>> been shown rather conclusively to have lied. As have Jim
>> Ragsdale, Gerald Anderson, Frank Kaufmann, etc.
>
> Twitch,
> This whole debate between "skeptics" and "believers" is going
> nowhere because both sides are just discrediting each others'
> sources of information. Result: No reliable information exists,
> therefore, there can be no debate.
Bob, I think you're close to understanding the situation!
Not quite, but close.
Kent Jeffrey, whom you quoted, was a believer and still is,
just not in Roswell. He is one of those who has shown how
weak the case for Roswell is.
Dennis, Schmitt, etc. were discredited by believers.
And, Anderson was discredited by a neutral lab that
investigated his diary.
No one has yet discredited, though they have tried, the Top
Secret Analysis, the Top Secret Memorandum to the Secretary
of the Joint Intelligence Committee, etc.
But, you are totally correct in your assertion that no
reliable information exists showing visits from another
stellar system.
dr...@greatland.net
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:41:55 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>It is
>>undisputed that the military had its hands on some of Brazel's debris
>>by the 6th at the latest.
>Undisputed?
Your right. My bad. There is some dispute as to exactly when the
military actually saw the debris, however the evidence points to the
6th. It is undisputed that Marcel returned to Roswell on the 8th.
Early that morning (2:00 am) he stopped by his house and showed some
of the debris to his family before returning to the airfield. That
means he DIDN'T spend that night at the Foster ranch. Therefore, he
spent the night of the 6th on the Foster ranch. Therefore, the day he
talked to Wilcox was the 6th. Brazel had some of the debris with him
when he talked to Wilcox and the military, and it is presumed that the
military took it with them when they (with the exception of Marcel and
Cavitt) went back to Roswell that day. I repeat, the military had its
hands on some of the debris by the 6th at the latest.
>>>> the fact remains that our government's first
>>>> concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?"
>>>Please post some evidence for this statement.
>>Read the reports from Projects Sign, Grudge and Bluebook. Review the
>>findings and circumstances surrounding the Robertson Panel and the
>>Condon Committee.
>Yep. They all came to the conclusion that there weren't
>nothing of real interest in UFOs.
That's not entirely true. The initial report from Sign, according to
Ruppelt, concluded that UFOs were extraterrestrial in origin, but was
rejected by Vandenberg. The rewrite stated that they warranted further
study. The Robertson Panel, without looking it up, stated that UFO
reports should be down-played, and I believe even used the term
"debunked" - which implies, looked at in the perspective of how later
reports were handled, covered-up. Grudge, according to Ruppelt
(although he thought it was unintentional), was functionally a
debunking project, implying (whether intentional or not) cover-up.
Blue Book has failed to release all its reports, implying cover-up.
The Condon committee let it slip early on in their investigation that
they had no intention of taking their task seriously, and, even so,
presented a report where their own evidence did not support their
conclusions, implying cover-up. Do you, on any of the above points,
disagree?
>>>> By the
>>>> time our foot-dragging military gives a response to a high-profile
>>>> sighting, it has already set into place simulations of the event and,
>>>> if need be, substitute artifacts.
>>>Is that why the International UFO Museum at Roswell went and
>>>got an affadavit from the owners of the land that the saucer
>>>was supposed to have crashed on and they don't know anything
>>>about it and doubt that it could have happened without their
>>>knowledge?
>>You're picking and choosing again Twitch. You picked the 2nd Ragsdale
>>story, which is readily apparent (except perhaps to Friedman) to be a
>>lie. This is particularly annoying since you have already stated
>>clearly that you believe the story to be a lie yourself.
>Nope. That affadavit is regarding the first Ragsdale site!
Yes. The only source I had to the Ragsdale story switch was you, and
I, after rereading your previous posts, discovered that I had assumed
you were referring to the second site when in fact you weren't. The
first Ragsdale story is interesting in that it has some outside
corroboration and some strong refutation (much like Bob Lazar's S4
claims). However, a good investigator would shelve his testimony until
such time as the refutations are cleared up or the corroboration
becomes significantly stronger, and a bad debunker would use his weak
testimony to refute the testimony of others. Which are you, Twitch? :)
drew
twi...@worldnet.att.net
dr...@greatland.net wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:41:55 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>>It is
>>>undisputed that the military had its hands on some of Brazel's debris
>>>by the 6th at the latest.
>
>>Undisputed?
>
>Your right. My bad. There is some dispute as to exactly when the
>military actually saw the debris, however the evidence points to the
>6th.
Actually, all the data from 1947 points to the 7th.
"Sheriff George Wilcox of Roswell said the disc was found
about three weeks ago by W.W. Brizell (sic), on the Foster
ranch at Corona, 75 miles northwest of Roswell.
Wilcox said that Brizell does not have a telephone and so
did not report finding the disc until the day before
yesterday. Brizell told the sheriff he didn't know just
what the disc was, but that at first it appeared to be a
weather meter."
The day before yesterday would have been the 7th.
"Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk."
Monday was the 7th.
And, when Friedman first questioned Marcel, Marcel couldn't
remember the year late alone the date of the incident, so I
place more reliability on the written word from 1947.
Further, Brazel went into town to sell some wool. The wool
buyers wouldn't be working on the 6th (Sunday) in Roswell in
1947. Roswell and the surrounding area are an extension of
the Bible Belt. Carlsbad didn't allow purchase of alcohol
on Sunday until 1995. And, then they only allowed it after
the Church services were over!
>It is undisputed that Marcel returned to Roswell on the 8th.
I agree with you but there is some dispute even on this.
>Early that morning (2:00 am) he stopped by his house and showed some
>of the debris to his family before returning to the airfield. That
>means he DIDN'T spend that night at the Foster ranch.
There is a lot of dispute about this.
"It (The Foster Ranch) was as close to the middle of nowhere
as you could get. Anyhow, we got there very late in the
afternoon and had to spend the night with this fellow. All
we had to eat was some cold pork and beans and some
crackers."
So, if Marcel found out about the debris on the 7th, which
is the only date ever mentioned for Brazel coming into town
back in 1947, that is the night of the 7th!
But, Marcel also stated:
we collected "all the debris we could handle ... That
afternoon, July 7, we headed back to Roswell and arrived
there in the early evening. When we arrived there, we
discovered that the story we had found a flying disc had
leadked out ahead of us. We had an eager-beaver PIO on the
base who had taken it upon himself to call the AP on this
thing. We had several calls that night, and one reporter
even came over to the house.... The next morning that the
written press release went out, and after that things really
hit the fan."
So, at one point even Marcel says he came back on the 7th.
Marcel's son has a third version and stated that his father
had been away for a couple of days and had returned at
midnight and had awakened his family to show them the
debris.
>Therefore, he
>spent the night of the 6th on the Foster ranch.
I disagree.
>Therefore, the day he
>talked to Wilcox was the 6th.
Brazel and Wilcox disagree.
>Brazel had some of the debris with him
>when he talked to Wilcox
Where did Wilcox say this?
"The sheriff quoted Brizell as saying the object "seemed
more or less like tinfoil." The rancher described the disc
as about as large as a safe in the sheriff's office. "
Which carries the clear implication that Wilcox didn't see
it!
>and the military, and it is presumed that the
>military took it with them when they (with the exception of Marcel and
>Cavitt) went back to Roswell that day. I repeat, the military had its
>hands on some of the debris by the 6th at the latest.
I repeat that you have no evidence whatsoever to support
this postion.
>
>>>>> the fact remains that our government's first
>>>>> concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?"
>
>>>>Please post some evidence for this statement.
>
>>>Read the reports from Projects Sign, Grudge and Bluebook. Review the
>>>findings and circumstances surrounding the Robertson Panel and the
>>>Condon Committee.
>
>>Yep. They all came to the conclusion that there weren't
>>nothing of real interest in UFOs.
>
>That's not entirely true. The initial report from Sign, according to
>Ruppelt, concluded that UFOs were extraterrestrial in origin, but was
>rejected by Vandenberg. The rewrite stated that they warranted further
>study.
Please post the exact quote. I know that Ruppelt stated
this about the EOTS (Which Ruppelt also stated explictly
admitted that there was no physical evidence such as
debris).
>The Robertson Panel, without looking it up,
Without looking it up? The Robertson Panel did look at the
AF case studies and weren't impressed.
>stated that UFO
>reports should be down-played, and I believe even used the term
>"debunked" - which implies, looked at in the perspective of how later
>reports were handled, covered-up.
Actually, it doesn't imply coverup as used by the Robertson
Panel!
They were worried that potential enemies contemplating an
attack on the United States might exploit the UFO phenomena
and use them to disrupt US air defenses.
The panel also recommended that the National Security
Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public
education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence
behind UFOs.
Project Sign, Project Grudge, and the Robertson Panel found
that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national
security and no evidence of visits by extraterrestrials.
Shortly afterwards, Odarenko, using the findings of the
Robertson panel, proposed to consider the project "inactive"
and to devote only one analyst part-time and a file clerk to
maintain a reference file of the activities of the Air Force
and other agencies on UFOs. Neither the Navy nor the Army
showed much interest in UFOs, according to Odarenko.
(Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell, "Unidentified Flying
Objects," 3 July 1953; Odarenko, memorandum to Chadwell,
"Current Status of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB)
Project," 17 December 1953.)
In 1955, Odarenko recommended that the entire project be
terminated because no new information concerning UFOs had
surfaced. Besides, he argued, his division was facing a
serious budget reduction and could not spare the resources.
(Odarenko, memorandum, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 8
August 1955.)
So, according to the CIA internal documents they didn't
think that the subject was all that important and were only
trying to keep informed of what the other services were
doing and to keep knowledge of their interest from becoming
known.
>Grudge, according to Ruppelt
>(although he thought it was unintentional), was functionally a
>debunking project, implying (whether intentional or not) cover-up.
>Blue Book has failed to release all its reports, implying cover-up.
Yet, they did receive all the UFO reports! And, based on
those reports they found nothing to be alarmed about.
Since Ruppelt was in charge of the project that means he saw
all the Blue Book Reports. He brought up the EOTS but has
never brought up any cases which were clear alien
spacecraft.
>The Condon committee let it slip early on in their investigation that
>they had no intention of taking their task seriously,
Wrong!
Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
the one to discover it.'
This is backed up by NICAP in the January-Feburary 1967
issue of THE UFO INVESTIGATOR. "It is probably fair to say
that the scientists on the project (Condon Committee) range
from open-minded skeptics to moderately convinced
'believers'..."
What NICAP didn't mention then was that Saunders had flown
down to them months before the committee was formed to meet
their leaders and to join NICAP. Which made him ineligible
for participation in the committee.
So, he withheld this info so he could participate!
McDonald covertly wrote to Armstrong and others in the study
group keeping tabs on what was being done and what the
attitude and findings were. They also wrote covertly back
to McDonald.
Levine had just graduated from the Uof A with his Phd and
was a follower of McDonald's and should, on that basis, have
been disqualified according to the contract for the study.
This 'Fifth-Column' provided internal memos to NICAP and
McDonald! These 'leaked' documents, with comments taken out
of context, formed the basis of the Look article by Fuller
which was published before the Condon Report was published!
This "Fifth-Column" held secret meetings with McDonald to
decide how to "engineer a confrontation"!
Their conduct was sufficiently unprofessional that, when
asked, Donald Keyhoe during the NICAP press briefing
admitted that if an employee of his acted this way "I'd
probably fire him. I'd take a dim view of the disloyalty..."
And, at the very beginning of the study, Saunders had
already had his mind fully made up! He wrote: "I had
maintained that a 'government conspiracy' to conceal the
'truth about UFOs' from the public was an even more likely
hypothesis than the ETI."
Yet, none of the documents which were submitted were used as
the basis of this belief. It was, however, the NICAP
official position!
>and, even so,
>presented a report where their own evidence did not support their
>conclusions, implying cover-up. Do you, on any of the above points,
>disagree?
Yes, see above for disagreement on all points.
>
>>>>> By the
>>>>> time our foot-dragging military gives a response to a high-profile
>>>>> sighting, it has already set into place simulations of the event and,
>>>>> if need be, substitute artifacts.
>
>>>>Is that why the International UFO Museum at Roswell went and
>>>>got an affadavit from the owners of the land that the saucer
>>>>was supposed to have crashed on and they don't know anything
>>>>about it and doubt that it could have happened without their
>>>>knowledge?
>
>>>You're picking and choosing again Twitch. You picked the 2nd Ragsdale
>>>story, which is readily apparent (except perhaps to Friedman) to be a
>>>lie. This is particularly annoying since you have already stated
>>>clearly that you believe the story to be a lie yourself.
>
>>Nope. That affadavit is regarding the first Ragsdale site!
>
>Yes. The only source I had to the Ragsdale story switch was you,
And, a better source you can't find!
>and
>I, after rereading your previous posts, discovered that I had assumed
>you were referring to the second site when in fact you weren't. The
>first Ragsdale story is interesting in that it has some outside
>corroboration
But, the outside corroboration comes from Kaufmann who is
not exactly addicted to telling the truth as Friedman,
Klass, etc. have all shown.
>and some strong refutation (much like Bob Lazar's S4
>claims). However, a good investigator would shelve his testimony until
>such time as the refutations are cleared up or the corroboration
>becomes significantly stronger,
Well, since the corroboration comes mainly from Kaufmann,
who has told tales of his position (he was a civilian clerk
in the personnel office only, yet he claims to have been
sent over to White Sands to operate the radar and wasn't
even allowed to go to the bathroom without a series of
mirrors so he could watch the screen - yet he wasn't a
trained radar operator and has admitted this!) I don't think
the corroboration is worth anything.
>and a bad debunker would use his weak
>testimony to refute the testimony of others. Which are you, Twitch? :)
Let's see, you base your belief on the first landing site
purely on Ragsdale and Kaufmann.
The first of which has since totally changed his story.
The second of which has totally changed his story from the
First R&S book.
So, there is no evidence of any decent quality for that site
and considerable excellent evidence against it.
Yet, you want to shelve McKnight's testimony because it
isn't to your liking and to accept Ragsdale's (first) story
and Kaufmann's (second) story because they do fit with what
you would like to happen.
Then you point out that a bad debunker would use weak
testimony to refute the testimony of others!
Is this a confession, drew?
Harry Bosch
> >
> > "Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
> > went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
> > confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk. "
> >
> > Monday was the 7th.
> >
> > How did the military get this debris on the 6th when Brazel
> > didn't come into town until the 7th?
>
> You're believing that our military wasn't aware of the crash
> military knew about it immediately. Also, you're believing that
> death threats from the military to the witnesses aren't a factor
> in subsequent witness commentary. I believe that they are.
Bob.
It seems from your posts, that you will BELIEVE anything that fits your agenda. Belief
is great for religion. Science is not based on just belief.
Have a nice day.
Bob & Louise
Harry Bosch wrote:
> Bob.
> It seems from your posts, that you will BELIEVE anything that fits your agenda. Belief
> is great for religion. Science is not based on just belief.
> Have a nice day.
> Harry
Harry Bosch,
I sure that you BELIEVE that I have an "agenda" that involves
something other than finding the truth. You would discard that
belief if you were to read the many posts I've made that discredit
certain ufo/alien claims that I BELIEVE to be untrue. We're all
allowed to change our beliefs as new information is discovered.
Scientists do it all the time.
Bob
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
But, Bob, you're beliefs should be founded on evidence of
some variety.
The only evidence we have shows that Brazel went into
Roswell on Monday the 7th. Marcel went out to the Foster
Ranch on the 7th.
The descriptions of the debris match what was shown in
Ramey's office.
Ramey had no access to sounding balloons and ML-307s to
switch the debris with.
All the documents show that the AF didn't know what the
flying discs were, which they would have known if they had
debris.
Etc., etc., etc.
IOW, no alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell.
dr...@greatland.net
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 17:20:23 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Actually, all the data from 1947 points to the 7th.
> Wilcox said that Brizell does not have a telephone and so
>did not report finding the disc until the day before
>yesterday. Brizell told the sheriff he didn't know just
>what the disc was, but that at first it appeared to be a
>weather meter."
I can't help but notice you are putting more stock in a report that
misspells Brazell's name than in the eye-witness testimony. Also, when
did this report see print?
>"Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
>went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
>confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk."
And the source for this would be...?
>And, when Friedman first questioned Marcel, Marcel couldn't
>remember the year late alone the date of the incident, so I
>place more reliability on the written word from 1947.
This would be your mistake. Marcel was undeniably there. Date memory
is notoriously unreliable (especially after 30+ years). Event memory
isn't nearly so. Marcel remembers spending the night on the Foster
ranch. Marcel and his son remember Marcel bringing some debris by the
house in the middle of the night. It is nearly universally accepted
that Marcel returned to Roswell on the 8th. The events create a
timeline that cannot be just cast aside because some reporter, who
obviously didn't make "keeping the facts straight" a priority, claims
otherwise. Anecdotally, I have had 5 newspaper articles printed about
me or my business ventures, and each of them has contained glaring
errors or misquotes. Although the articles were all either just fluff
articles or filler, the misspell of Brazell's name indicates that the
same priority for accuracy was applied.
>Further, Brazel went into town to sell some wool.
As was reported... but Brazell's son claimed that he went into town to
look at trucks. Brazell knew what he found wasn't a weather balloon
and didn't think he could collect any reward for its return. However,
conversation with his neighbors convinced him that there would be a
significantly larger reward if the debris turned out to be from a
"flying saucer" so Brazell went into town with some of the debris,
apparently expecting more than normal for it, thinking he was going to
be able to buy a new truck. Interestingly, also according to Brazell's
son, he DID end up getting a new truck shortly after the AF released
him.
>>Early that morning (2:00 am) he stopped by his house and showed some
>>of the debris to his family before returning to the airfield. That
>>means he DIDN'T spend that night at the Foster ranch.
>There is a lot of dispute about this.
>"It (The Foster Ranch) was as close to the middle of nowhere
>as you could get. Anyhow, we got there very late in the
>afternoon and had to spend the night with this fellow. All
>we had to eat was some cold pork and beans and some
>crackers."
>So, if Marcel found out about the debris on the 7th, which
>is the only date ever mentioned for Brazel coming into town
>back in 1947, that is the night of the 7th!
That is the date mentioned by the papers. The testimony states
otherwise.
>But, Marcel also stated:
>we collected "all the debris we could handle ... That
>afternoon, July 7, we headed back to Roswell and arrived
>there in the early evening. When we arrived there, we
>discovered that the story we had found a flying disc had
>leaked out ahead of us. We had an eager-beaver PIO on the
>base who had taken it upon himself to call the AP on this
>thing. We had several calls that night, and one reporter
>even came over to the house.... The next morning that the
>written press release went out, and after that things really
>hit the fan."
>So, at one point even Marcel says he came back on the 7th.
He has never contradicted this. He got home very early in the morning
on the 8th. He HAD to leave on the 7th to accomplish that.
>Marcel's son has a third version and stated that his father
>had been away for a couple of days and had returned at
>midnight and had awakened his family to show them the
>debris.
The version of both Marcels mesh. The only one at odds with it was the
one printed in the paper, one that didn't even get the names right.
Marcel arrived in town on the 6th and spent the night. He left the
ranch Monday afternoon and arrived home early in the morning.
Therefore, the day he talked to Wilcox was the 6th.
>Brazel and Wilcox disagree.
Niether disagree. A reporter (mis)quoting Wilcox disagreed.
>>Brazel had some of the debris with him
>>when he talked to Wilcox
>Where did Wilcox say this?
He said it to his wife and son-in-law. Also, if Brazel had any
intention of collecting anything at all from the material, it would
certainly be reasonable to assume that he took some of the debris with
him. In fact, it would seem to be idiocy for him not to bring along
some evidence.
>"The sheriff quoted Brizell as saying the object "seemed
>more or less like tinfoil." The rancher described the disc
>as about as large as a safe in the sheriff's office. "
>Which carries the clear implication that Wilcox didn't see
>it!
Or which carries the clear implication that the reporter wasn't too
concerned with the facts.
>I repeat that you have no evidence whatsoever to support
>this postion.
No evidence except the testimony of Jay Tulk, Barbara Dugger, both
Marcels, etc. You have only a clearly inaccurate newspaper item.
>>>>>> the fact remains that our government's first
>>>>>> concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?"
>>>>>Please post some evidence for this statement.
>>>>Read the reports from Projects Sign, Grudge and Bluebook. Review the
>>>>findings and circumstances surrounding the Robertson Panel and the
>>>>Condon Committee.
>>>Yep. They all came to the conclusion that there weren't
>>>nothing of real interest in UFOs.
>>That's not entirely true. The initial report from Sign, according to
>>Ruppelt, concluded that UFOs were extraterrestrial in origin, but was
>>rejected by Vandenberg. The rewrite stated that they warranted further
>>study.
>Please post the exact quote. I know that Ruppelt stated
>this about the EOTS (Which Ruppelt also stated explictly
>admitted that there was no physical evidence such as
>debris).
In looking this up I discovered we are both wrong. Specifically,
Ruppelt says (from the 1st print Avon p'back), "In intelligence, if
you have something to say about some vital problem you write a report
that is known as an 'Estimate of the Situation.' A few days after the
DC-3 was buzzed, the people at ATIC decided that the time had arrived
to make an Estimate of the Situation. The situation was the UFO's; the
estimate was that they were interplanetary!" (p. 58)
Although Ruppelt makes a few other comments regarding the EOTS (p.64
and p.82), he never mentions its contents, only its conclusions and
that Vandenberg rejected it.
It was Randle (quoting a Colonel friend who had died prior to the
Roswell relevation) who claimed there was a rewrite, and that the
rewrite had no mention of debris. From "The UFO Casebook" Randle says,
"The document returned with a couple of paragraphs removed under
Vandenberg's instructions. At that time, it sounded as if they were
removed because they didn't have a foundation in fact. Those
paragraphs referred to physical evidence recovered in New Mexico.
Vandenberg had made it clear that no mention of that physical evidence
would be tolerated in the final document.
"The men finished writing their report knowing that without the
physical evidence, it was nearly impossible to prove their case. But
then, they knew the evidence existed and were confident that sightings
reports of extraordinary maneuvers, craft that looked like no
conventional aircraft, and a few photographs of disc-shaped objects
would be enough. The physical evidence was the icing on the cake, but
without it, they still had the cake.
"Vandenberg saw the final document, dated 5 August 1948. After
reading it, he said the conclusions weren't warranted without physical
evidence. But the paragraphs that had contained information about the
physical evidence had been eliminated by Vandenberg's orders."
>>The Robertson Panel, without looking it up,
>Without looking it up? The Robertson Panel did look at the
>AF case studies and weren't impressed.
Misprint. Sentence SHOULD read "The Robertson Panel, without *MY*
looking it up,..."
>>stated that UFO
>>reports should be down-played, and I believe even used the term
>>"debunked" - which implies, looked at in the perspective of how later
>>reports were handled, covered-up.
>Actually, it doesn't imply coverup as used by the Robertson
>Panel!
It stated that the UFO phenomenon should be covered up, not because
the gov't was trying to keep it secret, but because the CIA was afraid
that major sightings, if reported by a large number of people
simultaneously, would tie up the communications network so severely
that national defense would be impeded. It also stated that the
cover-up should be carried out by humiliating witnesses and through
deliberate disinformation, a plan that was clearly enacted.
What this implies is that what people were seeing was something real,
but that they should be discouraged from reporting UFOs.
>Project Sign, Project Grudge, and the Robertson Panel found
>that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national
>security and no evidence of visits by extraterrestrials.
This is clearly not true. Sign's EOTS claimed that UFOs ARE
extraterrestrial.The Robertson Panel claimed that the greater danger
was the restriction of communcations resources that comes about when
UFOs are sighted. Grudge claimed that UFOs are no threat, but shortly
afterwards the Project got renamed and expanded, indicating that the
conclusions were not considered valid.
>Shortly afterwards, Odarenko, using the findings of the
>Robertson panel, proposed to consider the project "inactive"
>and to devote only one analyst part-time and a file clerk to
>maintain a reference file of the activities of the Air Force
>and other agencies on UFOs. Neither the Navy nor the Army
>showed much interest in UFOs, according to Odarenko.
The Army initiated UFO study! When the AF split off from the Army,
they (appropriately) split off the study of unexplained aerial
phenomena with it. Also, JANAP regulations state that ALL armed forces
should collect information regarding UFOs and forward it to Air Force
intelligence.
The Odarenko proposal is hardly surprising, particularly so if it knew
about Roswell. How much more study is required if you already have an
answere to the question? All that would be desired at that point would
be a monitoring and disinformation agency, and the AF already had one
on public display. A single CIA analyst would be all that was
necessary to review possible security ramifications, especially if the
phenomenon was already understood, and further, that it was understood
that the CIA had no power to change the situation. If the UFOs were
known to be extraterrestrial with technology far in advance of our
own, what possible benefit would the CIA get out of collecting UFO
reports? Also, none of Odarenko's memos exclude the possible existance
of a project (in or out of CIA control) of technical research and
back-engineering of recovered craft or debris.
>In 1955, Odarenko recommended that the entire project be
>terminated because no new information concerning UFOs had
>surfaced. Besides, he argued, his division was facing a
>serious budget reduction and could not spare the resources.
>(Odarenko, memorandum, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 8
>August 1955.)
Ditto. A thoroughly reasonable request given his position.
>So, according to the CIA internal documents they didn't
>think that the subject was all that important and were only
>trying to keep informed of what the other services were
>doing and to keep knowledge of their interest from becoming
>known.
This is contrary to what you just said. The CIA concluded that they
already had as much understanding as was possible in the given
situation, and therefore felt it didn't need to do anything except
monitor other agencies for developments that would change that
situation. This is nothing mysterious. Whether Roswell occurred or
not, this would be the situation. They never say UFOs are unimportant,
just that they had a sufficient understanding of the phenomenon, and
that further (minimal) monitoring was still necessary.
>>Grudge, according to Ruppelt
>>(although he thought it was unintentional), was functionally a
>>debunking project, implying (whether intentional or not) cover-up.
>>Blue Book has failed to release all its reports, implying cover-up.
>Yet, they did receive all the UFO reports!
Yet, they did *NOT* receive all the UFO reports! According to Air
Force Regulation 200-2, dated 12 Aug 53, Section 4. c.:
"c. Analysis. The Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC),
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, will analyze and evaluate: All
information and evidence reported in the ZI after the Air Defense
Command has exhausted all efforts to identify the UFOB; and all
information and evidence collected in oversea areas."
In other words: ADC collects the reports and Blue Book evaluates
whatever ADC passes on to them. The ADC collection agency? Same ref,
Section 6.:
"6. ZI Collection: The Air Defense Command has a direct interest in
the facts pertaining to UFOB's reported in the ZI and has, in the
4602d Air Intelligence Service Squadron (AISS), the capability to
investigate these reports...." and goes on to describe the group and
its location (Peterson Field, CO - right next door to ADC).
Further, there is a memo extant that clarifies these regs by stating
that all reports that are considered breaches of national security are
*NOT* handled by ATIC, whether identified or not, but I'll have to dig
around for the ref as I haven't seen it in a while.
Conclusion: ATIC (since Aug 53) is nothing more than a buffer between
the collecting agency and the public.
>And, based on
>those reports they found nothing to be alarmed about.
Hardly surprising since Blue Book's reports were all pre-sifted by
ADC. Even so, Blue Book still collected enough evidence for it to deem
one of its reports of such grave significance that it denies the
report even exists. The reports are numbered 1 through 14 - except
there is no 13. Why not? And if it does exist, what's in it that the
AF has decided is so secret that they deny the report's existence
entirely?
>Since Ruppelt was in charge of the project that means he saw
>all the Blue Book Reports. He brought up the EOTS but has
>never brought up any cases which were clear alien
>spacecraft.
How long was Ruppelt in charge of BB? 18 mos or so? Still, he
collected enough evidence that UFOs were intelligently guided
manufactured craft with performance characteristics that could not be
achieved by any known terrestrial nation, and that some demonstrated
maneuvers would kill a human occupant, to convince himself that UFOs
are extraterrestrial craft.
>>The Condon committee let it slip early on in their investigation that
>>they had no intention of taking their task seriously,
>Wrong!
I am right. Reread my statement. The contentions started AFTER the
contract was issued. Beforehand, everyone was excited because it was
believed that Condon would do an exceptional job and be outside the
influence of gov't subterfuge. Condon's performance at the McCarthy
hearings led everyone to believe that his integrity was secure. His
performance quickly destroyed those beliefs. You are correct in your
assertions that elements of the Condon Committee may have maintained
contact with the UFO community. This only served to amplify the
problems of the report. The conclusions of the individual
investigators either didn't match the conclusions of Condon or
disagreed with the results of their own research. Some of the cases
were thoroughly researched and, UFO or IFO, appropriate conclusions
drawn, but not so in others. In one case, an unidentified object was
"identified" as being a probable natural phenomenon so rare that it
had never before occurred and would never happen again!
As for Condon, his own statements condemn his objectivity. Quoted from
a speach to a scientific fraternity at Cornell by the Elmira
Star-Gazette:
"[UFOs] are not the business of the Air Force, ... It is my
inclination right now to recommend that the government get out of this
business. My attitude right now is that there's nothing to it. But I'm
not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year..."
This speach was given on 25 Jan 67, less than 4 months after the
contract was issued. Also, it is known that Condon would repeatedly
follow up crank cases rather than good reports, and that he spent very
little time even doing that. He left the investigation in the hands of
others, and this caused much discontent in those who were taking the
task seriously.
Finally, and in my eyes most damaging, is the very format of his
report. Section 1 contained Condon's severely slanted "Conclusions and
Recommendations" (Before any evidence is presented) and the balance of
the book is less than half filled with actual investigation of UFO
reports. Further, only 90 cases are studied, a third of which have
unsupported conclusions, or none at all.
>>> That affadavit is regarding the first Ragsdale site!
>> The only source I had to the Ragsdale story switch was you,
>And, a better source you can't find!
But if I relied on you solely, I would be just another blind skeptic!
:)
Besides that, I would miss out on all sorts of great discussion!
>>and
>>I, after rereading your previous posts, discovered that I had assumed
>>you were referring to the second site when in fact you weren't. The
>>first Ragsdale story is interesting in that it has some outside
>>corroboration
>But, the outside corroboration comes from Kaufmann who is
>not exactly addicted to telling the truth as Friedman,
>Klass, etc. have all shown.
There is testimony supporting Ragsdale's initial claims of being there
(family members), of what the site looked like (Barnett, the
archaeologists, the military), and the appearance of the bodies
(Dennis, Henderson, others). His first story was interesting because
it provided a direct link for so many other partial testimonies.
Ragsdale's first story also contained within it names and information
that led to other leads and finds. Whether parts (or even the whole)
were fabricated or not, he moved the investigation forward. His greed,
however, has certainly given the skeptics some delightful ammunition.
>>and some strong refutation (much like Bob Lazar's S4
>>claims). However, a good investigator would shelve his testimony until
>>such time as the refutations are cleared up or the corroboration
>>becomes significantly stronger,
>Well, since the corroboration comes mainly from Kaufmann,
>who has told tales of his position (he was a civilian clerk
>in the personnel office only, yet he claims to have been
>sent over to White Sands to operate the radar and wasn't
>even allowed to go to the bathroom without a series of
>mirrors so he could watch the screen - yet he wasn't a
>trained radar operator and has admitted this!) I don't think
>the corroboration is worth anything.
That would be true if Kaufmann was the sole source of corroboration.
He is not.
>>and a bad debunker would use his weak
>>testimony to refute the testimony of others. Which are you, Twitch? :)
>Let's see, you base your belief on the first landing site
>purely on Ragsdale and Kaufmann.
I don't hold much stock in ANYBODYs beliefs in the location of the
site, merely that the site existed.
>Yet, you want to shelve McKnight's testimony because it
>isn't to your liking and to accept Ragsdale's (first) story
>and Kaufmann's (second) story because they do fit with what
>you would like to happen.
Likelihood and liking are two different birds. The more unlikely the
Ragsdale (1st) site becomes, the more likely McKnight's/Barnett's site
becomes. I didn't choose from fantasy or desire but from the fact that
the location of the site is either in one place or another, and that I
put more stock in Randle/Schmitt than in Friedman or Moore. This is
not to say that I don't respect Moore's or Friedman's opinions, just
that I feel Randle has successfully argued against the San Augustin
site. As more evidence presents itself to me, my opinion may change.
>Then you point out that a bad debunker would use weak
>testimony to refute the testimony of others!
This is a true statement. To condemn a hypothesis because one of
hundreds of bits of data is flawed is preposterous, and it is an
arguing tactic you repeatedly use. Ragsdale and Kaufman are NOT the
only witnesses to the many aspects of the incident, but, because their
testimony is flawed, you choose to focus on them. This may be good
debating, but it's bad research. Something happened in 1947, and until
you can refute or disqualify ALL the testimony supporting the crash
hypothesis, it will remain a possibility. The same is true for the
weather balloon theory. The difference is that it is easier to
demonstrate the conspiracy than it is the hoax.
>Is this a confession, drew?
As noted above, it is an observation.
drew
Bob & Louise
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> But, Bob, you're beliefs should be founded on evidence of
> some variety.
>
> The only evidence we have shows that Brazel went into
> Roswell on Monday the 7th. Marcel went out to the Foster
> Ranch on the 7th.
>
> The descriptions of the debris match what was shown in
> Ramey's office.
>
> Ramey had no access to sounding balloons and ML-307s to
> switch the debris with.
>
> All the documents show that the AF didn't know what the
> flying discs were, which they would have known if they had
> debris.
>
> Etc., etc., etc.
>
> IOW, no alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell.
Twitch,
Instead of ending this post of yours with "Etc., etc., etc.",
you should have written "Blah, blah, blah". Why? Because your
post is nothing but a re-write of the government's version of
the story. You don't do any independent thinking on these
Roswell matters. For instance, why believe that the Army wouldn't
know of the crash right when it happened? The crash occured close
the radar-installated Roswell Base. Common deduction would tell you
that the Army's radar would detect that flying object, but you
don't regard this fact as being any kind of circumstantial evidence.
In your mind, the ONLY evidence is what the military SAYS is evidence.
Bob
twi...@worldnet.att.net
dr...@greatland.net wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 17:20:23 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>Actually, all the data from 1947 points to the 7th.
>
>> Wilcox said that Brizell does not have a telephone and so
>>did not report finding the disc until the day before
>>yesterday. Brizell told the sheriff he didn't know just
>>what the disc was, but that at first it appeared to be a
>>weather meter."
>
>I can't help but notice you are putting more stock in a report that
>misspells Brazell's name than in the eye-witness testimony.
Well, since the eyewitness testimony either contradicts
other eyewitness testimony, has been shown to be untrue, or
the eyewitnesses have changed their testimony, I do tend to
ignore the misspelling.
Additionally, this is from an eyewitness, in fact, the only
eyewitness to parts of the tale. As reported by a reporter.
>Also, when
>did this report see print?
It is a UP article datelined Washington, July 8, 1947.
>
>>"Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
>>went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
>>confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk."
>
>And the source for this would be...?
Haven't you read any of the original sources for the Roswell
incident?
Roswell Daily Record - July 9, 1947
>
>>And, when Friedman first questioned Marcel, Marcel couldn't
>>remember the year late alone the date of the incident, so I
>>place more reliability on the written word from 1947.
>
>This would be your mistake.
Nope. That was Marcel's mistake. As reported by Friedman
in Crash at Corona.
>Marcel was undeniably there. Date memory
>is notoriously unreliable (especially after 30+ years).
So, you prefer to rely on what you admit is notoriously
unreliable rather than the written words of what Brazel
said?
>Event memory
>isn't nearly so.
Nonsense. All research shows exactly the opposite.
In The Effects of Time Delay and Credibility on Eyewitness
Testimony by Jason Seiler, Jason Zawada, Debra Heard, Karrie
Smith, Marcy Broysdal:
"The effect of prolonged time intervals between the
introduction of misleading information and recall tests were
studied to determine if higher rates of the misinformation
effect were produced. The variable of perceived credibility
of an eyewitness was also examined to find whether it
influenced the likelihood of accepting false testimony. This
experiment was based on previous research initiated by
Loftus (1975) on metamemory and the misinformation effect in
eyewitness testimony. Based on the premise that memory for
an event becomes weakened with time, increased time
intervals should result in larger acceptance of
misinformation. Results of the experiment, obtained by
analysis of accuracy and confidence levels, were consistent
with this finding. Social factors such as perceived status
also affected the susceptibility of individuals to the
misinformation effect... Results from these experiments
suggest that information to which a witness is exposed
following an event is integrated into the individual's
memory, regardless of the veracity of the information
(Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). Another striking finding
from misinformation studies includes high reports of
subjective confidence ratings by individuals concerning the
accuracy of their memory, even when they incorrectly
recalled an event (Loftus & Hoffman, 1989). The likelihood
of false information about an event being adopted as
truth is affected by the interaction of several factors,
including age, cognitive, affective, environmental and
social variables ( O'Sullivan et al., 1995). "
Also, try looking at:
Loftus, E.F., & Loftus, G.R. (1980). On the permanence of
stored information in the human brain. American
Psychologist, 35, 409-420.
Event memory is as bad or worse than date memory!
>Marcel remembers spending the night on the Foster
>ranch.
In only one of his accounts. In other accounts he doesn't
state this. His son's event memory is different than
Marcel's event memory!
Marcel's son stated that his father had been away for a
couple of days and had returned at midnight and had awakened
his family to show them the debris.
>Marcel and his son remember Marcel bringing some debris by the
>house in the middle of the night. It is nearly universally accepted
>that Marcel returned to Roswell on the 8th. The events create a
>timeline that cannot be just cast aside because some reporter, who
>obviously didn't make "keeping the facts straight" a priority, claims
>otherwise.
Funny, Wilcox agreed that it was on the 7th. Marcel stated
it was on the 7th.
Marcel's son stated his father had been away for several
days, Marcel stated one day, etc.
The reporters seem to have done a considerably better job at
keeping the facts straight than Marcel seems to have done.
<snip>
>>Further, Brazel went into town to sell some wool.
>
>As was reported... but Brazell's
Oh dear. You misspelled Brazel's name. Does this indicate
that you aren't concerned about keeping your facts straight?
>son claimed that he went into town to
>look at trucks.
How many years afterwards did this memory surface?
>Brazell knew what he found wasn't a weather balloon
>and didn't think he could collect any reward for its return.
Quite the contrary. He felt that he might collect the $3000
reward that he had heard about on July 5th and which is what
decided him to report the debris after a three week delay.
Brazel had found standard Pibald weather balloon which were
nothing like a sounding balloon and a radar target.
>However,
>conversation with his neighbors convinced him that there would be a
>significantly larger reward if the debris turned out to be from a
>"flying saucer" so Brazell went into town with some of the debris,
>apparently expecting more than normal for it, thinking he was going to
>be able to buy a new truck. Interestingly, also according to Brazell's
>son, he DID end up getting a new truck shortly after the AF released
>him.
Well, since we have no real evidence that the AF held him...
The newspaper contradicts what Randle claimed about his
being escorted to the newspaper office.
>
>>>Early that morning (2:00 am) he stopped by his house and showed some
>>>of the debris to his family before returning to the airfield. That
>>>means he DIDN'T spend that night at the Foster ranch.
>
>>There is a lot of dispute about this.
>
>>"It (The Foster Ranch) was as close to the middle of nowhere
>>as you could get. Anyhow, we got there very late in the
>>afternoon and had to spend the night with this fellow. All
>>we had to eat was some cold pork and beans and some
>>crackers."
>
>>So, if Marcel found out about the debris on the 7th, which
>>is the only date ever mentioned for Brazel coming into town
>>back in 1947, that is the night of the 7th!
>
>That is the date mentioned by the papers. The testimony states
>otherwise.
All the dates mentioned during 1947 are consistent.
Marcel couldn't even remember the year that this whole thing
took place and you admit that date memory is horrible yet
you pin the dates wholely on old memories of dates.
>
>>But, Marcel also stated:
>
>>we collected "all the debris we could handle ... That
>>afternoon, July 7, we headed back to Roswell and arrived
>>there in the early evening. When we arrived there, we
>>discovered that the story we had found a flying disc had
>>leaked out ahead of us. We had an eager-beaver PIO on the
>>base who had taken it upon himself to call the AP on this
>>thing. We had several calls that night, and one reporter
>>even came over to the house.... The next morning that the
>>written press release went out, and after that things really
>>hit the fan."
>
>>So, at one point even Marcel says he came back on the 7th.
>
>He has never contradicted this. He got home very early in the morning
>on the 8th. He HAD to leave on the 7th to accomplish that.
Go back and reread that paragraph!
That afternoon on the 7th! It took only about 2-3 hours to
get from the Foster Ranch to Roswell. Route 285 was paved
and relatively quick. From the turnoff to the Foster Ranch
was just about one hour. Two hours would make the entire
trip virtually cross country off road which isn't the case.
So, if Marcel left on the afternoon of the 7th, he would be
back late the afternoon of the 7th.
>
>>Marcel's son has a third version and stated that his father
>>had been away for a couple of days and had returned at
>>midnight and had awakened his family to show them the
>>debris.
>
>The version of both Marcels mesh.
The versions of Marcel senior don't mesh, let alone his
son's.
> The only one at odds with it was the
>one printed in the paper,
Nope. His son said he had been away for more than one
night, Marcel stated he had been away for one night but he
has himself getting back at two different times on different
days.
>one that didn't even get the names right.
Several of the contemporary accounts do get the names right
and they agree that the 7th was when Brazel arrived in town.
>Marcel arrived in town on the 6th and spent the night. He left the
>ranch Monday afternoon and arrived home early in the morning.
>Therefore, the day he talked to Wilcox was the 6th.
What was Marcel doing alone working on the Base on the
Sunday? It was a three-day holiday. He didn't have the
watch.
He should have been with his family, not at work.
>
>>Brazel and Wilcox disagree.
>
>Niether disagree. A reporter (mis)quoting Wilcox disagreed.
Many more than one reporter disagrees. In fact, no one in
1947 stated anything other than the 7th.
So, you would prefer to rely on what even you admit is
horrible memories and ignore all the internal contradictions
of your account.
>
>>>Brazel had some of the debris with him
>>>when he talked to Wilcox
>
>>Where did Wilcox say this?
>
>He said it to his wife and son-in-law.
What you mean is that his wife and son-in-law say he said
that.
There is absolutely no evidence of this in the documents
that are contemporary to this account.
<snip>
>>"The sheriff quoted Brizell as saying the object "seemed
>>more or less like tinfoil." The rancher described the disc
>>as about as large as a safe in the sheriff's office. "
>
>>Which carries the clear implication that Wilcox didn't see
>>it!
>
>Or which carries the clear implication that the reporter wasn't too
>concerned with the facts.
But all the reporters tell the same story. Even those that
interviewed him carefully.
While you are more concerned with ancient memories which can
be shown by virtually all modern memory research to be
untrustworthy.
>
>>I repeat that you have no evidence whatsoever to support
>>this postion.
>
>No evidence except the testimony of Jay Tulk, Barbara Dugger, both
>Marcels, etc. You have only a clearly inaccurate newspaper item.
Nope. I have many newspaper articles from people who
interviewed Marcel when he could still remember what year
the event happened in.
>
>>>>>>> the fact remains that our government's first
>>>>>>> concern upon learning of a ufo is "how do we cover this up?"
>
>>>>>>Please post some evidence for this statement.
>
>>>>>Read the reports from Projects Sign, Grudge and Bluebook. Review the
>>>>>findings and circumstances surrounding the Robertson Panel and the
>>>>>Condon Committee.
>
>>>>Yep. They all came to the conclusion that there weren't
>>>>nothing of real interest in UFOs.
>
>>>That's not entirely true. The initial report from Sign, according to
>>>Ruppelt, concluded that UFOs were extraterrestrial in origin, but was
>>>rejected by Vandenberg. The rewrite stated that they warranted further
>>>study.
>
>>Please post the exact quote. I know that Ruppelt stated
>>this about the EOTS (Which Ruppelt also stated explictly
>>admitted that there was no physical evidence such as
>>debris).
>
>In looking this up I discovered we are both wrong.
Sorry, but my comment about what Marcel stated about the
EOTS is not wrong.
>Specifically,
>Ruppelt says (from the 1st print Avon p'back), "In intelligence, if
>you have something to say about some vital problem you write a report
>that is known as an 'Estimate of the Situation.' A few days after the
>DC-3 was buzzed, the people at ATIC decided that the time had arrived
>to make an Estimate of the Situation. The situation was the UFO's; the
>estimate was that they were interplanetary!" (p. 58)
>
>Although Ruppelt makes a few other comments regarding the EOTS (p.64
>and p.82), he never mentions its contents, only its conclusions and
>that Vandenberg rejected it.
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
According to Ruppelt's book "The Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects" (p.45):
"The general wouldn't buy interplanetary vehicles. The
report lacked proof. A group from ATIC went to the
Pentagon to bolster their position but had no luck, the
Chief of Staff just couldn't be convinced."
The report lacked proof! IOW, they had no physical debris.
Which is agreed to by Fournet. In a letter dated May 23,
1992, to UFO researcher Jim Meliscuic, Fournet said about
the EOTS he had "inherited a copy when I became program
monitor....It recapped all seemingly unexplainable UFO
reports received by the Air Force to that time. It very
explicitly mentioned that absolutely no artifacts had been
recovered."
Unfortunately, we don't have a copy of the EOTS. But we do
have other Top Secret documents which show the same thing.
In all the Top Secret and Secret documents, the AF doesn't
know what these flying saucers are because they don't have
any physical evidence!
>
>It was Randle (quoting a Colonel friend who had died prior to the
>Roswell relevation) who claimed there was a rewrite, and that the
>rewrite had no mention of debris. From "The UFO Casebook" Randle says,
>"The document returned with a couple of paragraphs removed under
>Vandenberg's instructions. At that time, it sounded as if they were
>removed because they didn't have a foundation in fact. Those
>paragraphs referred to physical evidence recovered in New Mexico.
>Vandenberg had made it clear that no mention of that physical evidence
>would be tolerated in the final document.
Unfortunately, Randle is full of s..t. Randle is merely
trying to plug the leak in the dike with his prick. He has
no evidence to support this wacko claim.
Ruppelt and Fournet didn't state anything like this.
The EOTS, according to dating made possible by
Ruppelt, was sent out six weeks after the Analysis had been
sent to Maj. Gen. Cabell!
The Analysis clearly shows that they didn't have any
physical debris.
The Analysis is clearly in keeping with the Twining letter,
the McCoy letter, The Schulgen "memo", The McCoy briefing to
the AFSAB, etc.
If Vandenberg wanted to kill a document it makes no sense
for him to tell them to remove the evidence before
submitting it to him and then to kill it for the reason it
had no evidence!
If he wanted to kill it, just tell them not to submit it!
No submission means no documentation trail in the first
place. Or, if they did send up the draft, it means a much
smaller documentation trail and less evidence!
This has Vandenberg deliberately making his juniors look
like idiots, something that they wouldn't appreciate and
would remember!
<snip>
>>>The Robertson Panel, without looking it up,
>
<snip>
>What this implies is that what people were seeing was something real,
>but that they should be discouraged from reporting UFOs.
It carries no implication that what people were seeing was
something real.
The panel found no evidence that the objects sighted might
be extraterrestrials.
The Robertson Panel report convinced the CIA to drop plans
that they had to draft an NSCID on UFOs.
Shortly after the Robertson Panel, the group in charge of
UFOs tried to get the subject further downsized to save them
money and effort.
>
>>Project Sign, Project Grudge, and the Robertson Panel found
>>that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national
>>security and no evidence of visits by extraterrestrials.
>
>This is clearly not true. Sign's EOTS claimed that UFOs ARE
>extraterrestrial.
Sorry, but the EOTS was written by ATIC under AMC. It
didn't claim that UFOs ARE ET, an estimate of the situation
doesn't make that type of claim. It probably stated that
they might be ET.
>The Robertson Panel claimed that the greater danger
>was the restriction of communcations resources that comes about when
>UFOs are sighted.
Sorry but the panel found that the UFOs were of no danger to
the national security.
>Grudge claimed that UFOs are no threat, but shortly
>afterwards the Project got renamed and expanded, indicating that the
>conclusions were not considered valid.
So, you agree that the fact that after the Robertson Panel
came to its conclusions the CIA organization in charge of
UFOs wanted to drop them is important evidence that they
were of no real interest!
>
>>Shortly afterwards, Odarenko, using the findings of the
>>Robertson panel, proposed to consider the project "inactive"
>>and to devote only one analyst part-time and a file clerk to
>>maintain a reference file of the activities of the Air Force
>>and other agencies on UFOs. Neither the Navy nor the Army
>>showed much interest in UFOs, according to Odarenko.
>
>The Army initiated UFO study! When the AF split off from the Army,
>they (appropriately) split off the study of unexplained aerial
>phenomena with it.
Alas, for your claim, the NAVY was in bed the entire time
with the AF and got all of their information.
"In November, 1948, the Navy sent the USAF a letter stating
that they wished to assist in the analysis of UFOs. DI
using the Navy's letter as a supporting document then
directed Project Sign to make copies of all their material
and send it to ONI."
>Also, JANAP regulations state that ALL armed forces
>should collect information regarding UFOs and forward it to Air Force
>intelligence.
>
UFOs were not included in JANAP 146, until the 146A revision
of Sept 1950!
>The Odarenko proposal is hardly surprising, particularly so if it knew
>about Roswell. How much more study is required if you already have an
>answere to the question?
But, they were making loads of studies after Roswell! The
Twining Letter, the Schulgen "memo", the Top Secret
Analysis, the Top Secret MEMORANDUM TO THE SECRETARY, Joint
Intelligence Committee, etc. All the INSCOM documents show
that they were spending a vast amount of resources trying
to find out if the UFOs were Russian airplanes, etc.
So, you are admitting that the fact that all of these
studies were done and all of this effort was spent means
that Roswell wasn't an alien spacecraft!
Odarenko proposal is surprising in that if there were such a
craft, he would want to get his people eating at that
trough! There would be big bucks for any bureaucrat who
could get a piece of such a pie.
<snip>
>>In 1955, Odarenko recommended that the entire project be
>>terminated because no new information concerning UFOs had
>>surfaced. Besides, he argued, his division was facing a
>>serious budget reduction and could not spare the resources.
>>(Odarenko, memorandum, "Unidentified Flying Objects," 8
>>August 1955.)
>
>Ditto. A thoroughly reasonable request given his position.
Yes. But, only if Roswell wasn't a crashed alien
spacecraft. Which it clearly wasn't.
August 1, 1952 memo "it is probable that if complete
information were available for the presently unexplainable
reports they too" could be explained. However, "so long as
a series of reports remains "unexplainable" (interplanetary
aspects and alien origin not being thoroughly excluded from
consideration) caution requires that Intelligence continue
coverage of the subject."
Yep. Roswell wasn't a crashed alien spacecraft!
CIA Secret Briefing paper dated 14 August 1952, discussing
the four possibilities of what the UFOs could be:
"First, that it is a secret weapon development. This has
been denied officially at the highest level of government
and to make doubly certain we queried Dr. Whitman, Chairman
of the Research and Development Board. On a Top Secret
basis, he too denies it…
The second theory is that these are Russian development.
Though we know that the Russians have done work on
elliptical and delta wing principles, we have absolutely no
intelligence of such a technological advance as would be
indicated here in either design or power source. Further,
there seems to be no logical reason for the security risk
that would be involved and there has been no indication of a
reconnaissance pattern. However, there is a totally
unsupported thesis that this may be a Russian high altitude
development of the World War II Jap balloon effort using
preset flares and the resulting US press reports to check
flight tracks.
"The third theory is the man from Mars - space ships -
interplanetary travelers. Even though we might admit that
intelligent life may exist elsewhere and that space travel
is possible, there is no shred of evidence to support this
theory at present.
The fourth major theory is that now held by the Air Force,
that the sightings, given adequate data, can be explained
either on the basis of misinterpretation of known objects,
or of as yet little understood phenomena."
No shred of evidence to support this theory at present!
The CIA classified briefing paper of 15 August, 1952 stated
that:
"In the next few mintues, I intend to touch briefly upon the
official explanations of the great majority of sightings of
unidentified flying objects (or UFOs) and mention possible
phenomena which may account for some of the open cases.
Before we elaborate upon the official explanations of the
great majority of sightings of unidentified flying objects
(or UFOs) and mention possible phenomenon which may account
for some of the open cases, I would like you to keep in mind
certain facts which are common to all reports. First is the
earnestness of those making reports. These people are all
certain that they have seen something. Secondly, objects
sighted almost always are reported to be against the sky
thereby providing no point of reference. Thirdly, without a
reference point, a valid estimation of size, speed, distance
of relative motion is virtually impossible. Finally, no
debris or material evidence has ever been recovered
following an unexplained sighting."
Finally, no debris or material evidence has ever been
recovered following an unexplained sighting.
<snip>
>. They never say UFOs are unimportant,
>just that they had a sufficient understanding of the phenomenon, and
>that further (minimal) monitoring was still necessary.
But they do state that they don't have any evidence or
physical debris!
>
>>>Grudge, according to Ruppelt
>>>(although he thought it was unintentional), was functionally a
>>>debunking project, implying (whether intentional or not) cover-up.
>>>Blue Book has failed to release all its reports, implying cover-up.
>
>>Yet, they did receive all the UFO reports!
>
>Yet, they did *NOT* receive all the UFO reports! According to Air
>Force Regulation 200-2, dated 12 Aug 53, Section 4. c.:
<unfortunately, these comments are all taken out of context!
The Blue Book did receive all reports.
Paragraph 4g of Office Memo 200-23 specifically gave the
responsibility of reporting all pertinent reports to
AFION-2B!>
>
>>And, based on
>>those reports they found nothing to be alarmed about.
>
>Hardly surprising since Blue Book's reports were all pre-sifted by
>ADC.
Not really. Go look at the documents and not the parts of
the documents that some popular authors are quoting out of
context.
>Even so, Blue Book still collected enough evidence for it to deem
>one of its reports of such grave significance that it denies the
>report even exists. The reports are numbered 1 through 14 - except
>there is no 13. Why not? And if it does exist, what's in it that the
>AF has decided is so secret that they deny the report's existence
>entirely?
>
You've learned the art of asking rhetorical questions well
from Randle. However, the existance of a no. 13 is not
shown by mere numbering. It is not uncommon to assign a
block of numbers or a number for a purpose and then not to
activate that task.
What evidence do you have that no. 13 exists?
>>Since Ruppelt was in charge of the project that means he saw
>>all the Blue Book Reports. He brought up the EOTS but has
>>never brought up any cases which were clear alien
>>spacecraft.
>
>How long was Ruppelt in charge of BB? 18 mos or so?
He was there during the EOTS! Remember the EOTS?
> Still, he
>collected enough evidence that UFOs were intelligently guided
>manufactured craft with performance characteristics that could not be
>achieved by any known terrestrial nation, and that some demonstrated
>maneuvers would kill a human occupant, to convince himself that UFOs
>are extraterrestrial craft.
>
IOW, he didn't have any physical evidence and was basing it
on observations.
IOW, Roswell wasn't a crashed alien spacecraft.
>>>The Condon committee let it slip early on in their investigation that
>>>they had no intention of taking their task seriously,
>
>>Wrong!
>
>I am right. Reread my statement. The contentions started AFTER the
>contract was issued.
They would have started earlier if the believers on the
committee hadn't withheld the info that disqualified them
from participating in the study!
And, what did Condon say about these disloyal and subversive
elements?
"I had some awareness of the passionate controversy that
swirled around the subject, contributing added difficulty to
the task of making a dispassionate study...Had I known of
the extent of the emotional commitment of the UFO believers
and the extremes of conduct to which their faith can lead
them, I certainly would never have undertaken the study."
<snip>
> You are correct in your
>assertions that elements of the Condon Committee may have maintained
>contact with the UFO community.
Maintained? Even Keyhoe admitted he'd fire anyone as
disloyal as Condon's subordinates were.
Condon's subordinates only got on the committee by hiding
their feelings. They met secretly with the main opponents
of Condon and secretly plotted for a method of engineering a
"confrontation".
That is one hell of a lot different than maintaining
contact!
<snip>
>
>As for Condon, his own statements condemn his objectivity. Quoted from
>a speach to a scientific fraternity at Cornell by the Elmira
>Star-Gazette:
>
>"[UFOs] are not the business of the Air Force, ... It is my
>inclination right now to recommend that the government get out of this
>business. My attitude right now is that there's nothing to it. But I'm
>not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year..."
>
Lewis Branscomb, then chairman of the Joint Institute for
Laboratory Astrophysics wrote about Condon's attitude:
"I remember vividly, a long discussion with Ed Condon in his
office ... when he was considering taking the project on.
He told me he thought the chance that he could find evidence
for a UFO of exterrestrial origin was infinitesimal, a
million-to-one shot. 'But' he said with the gleam in the
eye that betrays a true scientist on the track of a
remarkable discovery, 'if there is a chance, even the most
remote chance that there is something there, I want to be
the one to discover it.'
<snip>
>Finally, and in my eyes most damaging, is the very format of his
>report. Section 1 contained Condon's severely slanted "Conclusions and
>Recommendations"<snip>
Ah, Drew, that is the normal way of writing a paper or a
report.
You either place the conclusions first or an excutive
summary first in which you condense the conclusions.
>
>>>> That affadavit is regarding the first Ragsdale site!
>
>>> The only source I had to the Ragsdale story switch was you,
>
>>And, a better source you can't find!
>
>But if I relied on you solely, I would be just another blind skeptic!
>:)
But a skeptic quotes from the original sources!
>Besides that, I would miss out on all sorts of great discussion!
>
>>>and
>>>I, after rereading your previous posts, discovered that I had assumed
>>>you were referring to the second site when in fact you weren't. The
>>>first Ragsdale story is interesting in that it has some outside
>>>corroboration
>
>>But, the outside corroboration comes from Kaufmann who is
>>not exactly addicted to telling the truth as Friedman,
>>Klass, etc. have all shown.
>
>There is testimony supporting Ragsdale's initial claims of being there
>(family members),
They weren't with him, how did they know where the site was?
>of what the site looked like (Barnett, the
>archaeologists, the military),
Barnett's site is on the other side of the state from
Roswell!
>and the appearance of the bodies
>(Dennis, Henderson, others).
Dennis... Dennis... Oh you mean the guy who got caught
lying about the nurse and that is where he got the info as
to the appearance of the bodies?
Ah, if he lied about her and she never existed, what does
that say about his description of the alien bodies?
And, which bodies?
'He told us they were nothing to be scared of.
They were friendly looking and had nice faces.
They looked Asian, he said, but had larger heads
and no hair. They looked a yellowy color. ...
But he said they could have passed for Chinese -
they had slanted eyes.'
Those certainly don't sound the same as some of the other
descriptions.
>His first story was interesting because
>it provided a direct link for so many other partial testimonies.
Which contradict each other.
>Ragsdale's first story also contained within it names and information
>that led to other leads and finds.
Yep. It brought us Kaufmann with his lies. It brought us
Dennis with his lies, etc.
>Whether parts (or even the whole)
>were fabricated or not, he moved the investigation forward. His greed,
>however, has certainly given the skeptics some delightful ammunition.
Gee, you are the one who was complaining about his changing
his story for money.
>
>>>and some strong refutation (much like Bob Lazar's S4
>>>claims). However, a good investigator would shelve his testimony until
>>>such time as the refutations are cleared up or the corroboration
>>>becomes significantly stronger,
>
>>Well, since the corroboration comes mainly from Kaufmann,
>>who has told tales of his position (he was a civilian clerk
>>in the personnel office only, yet he claims to have been
>>sent over to White Sands to operate the radar and wasn't
>>even allowed to go to the bathroom without a series of
>>mirrors so he could watch the screen - yet he wasn't a
>>trained radar operator and has admitted this!) I don't think
>>the corroboration is worth anything.
>
>That would be true if Kaufmann was the sole source of corroboration.
>He is not.
And, the others are... The envelop please, miss...
Dennis, Anderson, Brown,...
Which story do you like. Please don't just state other
sources of corroboration but provide the details in the
cases, if there are any, where they didn't disagree.
>
>>>and a bad debunker would use his weak
>>>testimony to refute the testimony of others. Which are you, Twitch? :)
>
>>Let's see, you base your belief on the first landing site
>>purely on Ragsdale and Kaufmann.
>
>I don't hold much stock in ANYBODYs beliefs in the location of the
>site, merely that the site existed.
Ah, a secret site. If there isn't a site there isn't a
crash.
No one has yet shown a site. Ragsdale's first site as
corroborated by Kaufmann has been blown out of the water.
Randle disagrees with his second site, but Friedman likes
it. Of course, the reason Friedman likes it is because it
shows Randle up as an ass.
If you don't have an site but all those witnesses, what does
that say about those witnesses?
>
>>Yet, you want to shelve McKnight's testimony because it
>>isn't to your liking and to accept Ragsdale's (first) story
>>and Kaufmann's (second) story because they do fit with what
>>you would like to happen.
>
>Likelihood and liking are two different birds. The more unlikely the
>Ragsdale (1st) site becomes, the more likely McKnight's/Barnett's site
>becomes.
But, that site disagrees with most of the other
corroborating evidence!
And, McKnight's is Ragsdale's first site.
> I didn't choose from fantasy or desire but from the fact
Ah, drew, you don't have any facts. You have a lot of
eyewitness testimony that only agrees with each other if you
ignore a good portion of what each person said.
> that
>the location of the site is either in one place or another,
Or nowhere.
>and that I
>put more stock in Randle/Schmitt than in Friedman or Moore.
Well, that means you put more stock in Ragsdale's first site
that McKnight has blown out of the water.
>This is
>not to say that I don't respect Moore's or Friedman's opinions, just
>that I feel Randle has successfully argued against the San Augustin
>site. As more evidence presents itself to me, my opinion may change.
Randle has argued well against Friedman's site. Friedman
and others have blown Randle's site out of the water.
>
>>Then you point out that a bad debunker would use weak
>>testimony to refute the testimony of others!
>
>This is a true statement. To condemn a hypothesis because one of
>hundreds of bits of data is flawed is preposterous, and it is an
>arguing tactic you repeatedly use.
Nope. I point out that the landing site (crash site) is in
several places but each place has been shown to not exist.
I point out that the dates used in the books don't agree
with each other nor with the dates from 1947.
I point out that the authors use partial quotes so they can
quote out of context.
I point out that several people have claimed that they were
quoted badly out of context or had quotes made up about what
they supposedly said (Johnson, Exon, Newton, etc.)
I point out that all the gov't documents show that no debris
has been found.
I point out that virtually all of your eyewitness testimony
disagrees with most of the rest of your eyewitness
testimony.
Etc.
>Ragsdale and Kaufman are NOT the
>only witnesses to the many aspects of the incident, but, because their
>testimony is flawed, you choose to focus on them.
Randle stated that these two were his major witnesses!
Along with Marcel, of course.
Jan./Feb. 1994 issue *International UFO
Reporter* published by the Hynek Center for UFO Studies
(CUFOS),
"Skeptics of UFO crash stories have clamored for one,
firsthand witness to the crash of a nonterrestrial object,
with bodies, who would sign an affidavit and whose story
checks out. There is now such a witness in the person of Jim
Ragsdale, who has lived in Roswell for many years and has
been telling his crash story, completely at odds with the
[original] press release and Brazel story, since soon after
the event. Ragsdale has, indeed, signed an affidavit, and
with his public accounting of what he witnessed, the case
for Roswell becomes that much stronger."
So, Ragsdale according to Randle and Schmitt is a major part
of the story.
And, the stated reason for the second book was the testimony
of Kaufmann!
Now, both of these guys are shown to be liars, yet their
tales are still quoted.
You don't have a crash site, you don't have any real
witnesses, you don't have any debris, you don't have much.
>This may be good
>debating, but it's bad research.
Nope. Pointing out that virtually all of the major players
in the Roswell story have lied is pretty good research.
What you have failed to do is to show that anyone is telling
the truth.
>Something happened in 1947, and until
>you can refute or disqualify ALL the testimony supporting the crash
>hypothesis, it will remain a possibility.
Wow! I have to disqualify ALL of the testimony!
I notice that you don't have to show that any of the
testimony is real.
>The same is true for the
>weather balloon theory. The difference is that it is easier to
>demonstrate the conspiracy than it is the hoax.
Yep. And, there wasn't a conspiracy.
Ramey didn't have access to ML-307s and sounding balloons.
There wasn't a switch of debris, etc.
The GAO didn't even disagree with the AF over Mogul.
>
>>Is this a confession, drew?
>
>As noted above, it is an observation.
>
Ok. It is an observation of your tactics.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> But, Bob, you're beliefs should be founded on evidence of
>> some variety.
>>
>> The only evidence we have shows that Brazel went into
>> Roswell on Monday the 7th. Marcel went out to the Foster
>> Ranch on the 7th.
>>
>> The descriptions of the debris match what was shown in
>> Ramey's office.
>>
>> Ramey had no access to sounding balloons and ML-307s to
>> switch the debris with.
>>
>> All the documents show that the AF didn't know what the
>> flying discs were, which they would have known if they had
>> debris.
>>
>> Etc., etc., etc.
>>
>> IOW, no alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell.
>
> Twitch,
> Instead of ending this post of yours with "Etc., etc., etc.",
> you should have written "Blah, blah, blah".
OK. Blah, blah, blah.
>Why? Because your
> post is nothing but a re-write of the government's version of
> the story.
Nope. As a matter of fact, the gov't didn't even know most
of this until some dedicated UFO researchers found out most
of the data.
The Gov't piggybacked off of their research by following up
their FOIA requests to see what they found.
>You don't do any independent thinking on these
> Roswell matters. For instance, why believe that the Army wouldn't
> know of the crash right when it happened? The crash occured close
> the radar-installated Roswell Base.
Sorry, Bob, but you're wrong again.
Roswell didn't have any ground radars at all. Neither did
Fort Worth! In fact, the 8th AAF had virtually none of them
and couldn't even train their people.
They sent a letter over to White Sands just before Roswell
incident asking if they could use their ground radars to
train for ECM since they didn't have any ground radars.
A letter from the
Headquarters Eighth Air Force dated 3 Jun 1947:
"1. The Eighth Air Force is conducting a Radar
Countermeasures program as part of its training and is
desirous of the cooperation of units which use ground radar
equipment in permitting training flights to be scheduled
with aircraft equipped with electronic jammers and "window"
to cooperate against various types of ground radar sets so
that the results and effectiveness of the jamming and
training might be observed and made know.
2. There is a lack of ground radar equipment convient to
Eighth Air Force Bases which are located at Fort Worth,
Texas, Tucson, Arizona, and Roswell, New Mexico; and since
White Sands is easily within easy flying distance of all
three bases, your cooperation is particularly desirable."
Which once again shows that the eyewitnesses Randle and
Schmitt used for their book were lying.
Unfortunately, White Sands wasn't able to assist since they
had a lack of radars that hadn't been modified for R&D work.
>Common deduction would tell you
> that the Army's radar would detect that flying object, but you
> don't regard this fact as being any kind of circumstantial evidence.
Well, since they didn't have any radars, why do you think
that the Army would have detected that flying object?
> In your mind, the ONLY evidence is what the military SAYS is evidence.
Nope. Only what can be checked and found to be true is
evidence.
Unfortunately, all of that shows that most of the quoted
Roswell eyewitnesses, Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, Marcel,
etc. lied.
Harry Bosch
Bob & Louise wrote:
>
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > But, Bob, you're beliefs should be founded on evidence of
> > some variety.
> >
> > The only evidence we have shows that Brazel went into
> > Roswell on Monday the 7th. Marcel went out to the Foster
> > Ranch on the 7th.
> >
> > The descriptions of the debris match what was shown in
> > Ramey's office.
> >
> > Ramey had no access to sounding balloons and ML-307s to
> > switch the debris with.
> >
> > All the documents show that the AF didn't know what the
> > flying discs were, which they would have known if they had
> > debris.
> >
> > Etc., etc., etc.
> >
> > IOW, no alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell.
>
> Twitch,
> Instead of ending this post of yours with "Etc., etc., etc.",
> post is nothing but a re-write of the government's version of
> Roswell matters. For instance, why believe that the Army wouldn't
> know of the crash right when it happened? The crash occured close
> that the Army's radar would detect that flying object, but you
> don't regard this fact as being any kind of circumstantial evidence.
Hi Bob.
OK, tell me if I'm correct. You disregard any evidence that
was written in 1947 but you believe the interviews of people
25 to 40 years later. The only written evidence being "I said
it's so, so it's so". Is that a pretty clear explanation of
what you "believe"?
Do you "believe" that this article by the Roswell
Daily Record - July 9, 1947 is a lie?
If you do, don't go on as I am wasting my time.
But just in case you might believe that it could be true,
how do you justify a crashed spaceship at Roswell, after
reading the description of the material found by Brazel?
Did Brazel lie? Did the Roswell Daily record lie? No.
The people that were mistaken were the folks that tried
to remember 25 to 40 years after the fact.
Clips from the Roswell Daily Record - July 9, 1947
Clip no. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brazel related that on June 14 he and 8-year-old son, Vernon were
about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J.B. Foster ranch,
which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage
made up on (sic) rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My note: Does this sound like it might be a spaceship?
Clip no. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he wondered
if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My note: "He wondered if what he had found might be the remnants"
of a "flying disk". Not a spaceship, a "flying disk". People only
thought they were "flying disks", they didn't think they were spaceships.
Clip No. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My note: Here again he called it a "flying disk" not a spaceship.
Clip No. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilcox got in touch with the Roswell Army Air Field and Maj.
Jesse A. Marcel and a man in plain clothes accompanied him home,
where they picked up the rest of the pieces of the "disk" and
went to his home to try to reconstruct it.
According to Brazel they simply could not reconstruct it at all.
They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do that and
could not find any way to put it back together so that it would fit.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My note:
"They tried to make a kite out of it". Why did a major in the AAF
and a "man in plain clothes" try to make a "kite" out of spaceship
debris? Unless they thought it was a kite.
Clip No. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brazel said that he did not see it fall from the sky and did not
see it before it was torn up, so he did not know the size or shape
it might have been, but he thought it might have been about as large
as a table top. The balloon which held it up, if that was how it
worked, must have been about 12 feet long, he felt, measuring the
distance by the size of the room in which he sat. The rubber was
smoky gray in color and scattered over an area about 200 yards in
diameter.
When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks
made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while
the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches
thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe
five pounds.
There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used
for an engine and no sign of any propellors of any kind, although at
least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil.
There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument, although
there were letters on some of the parts. Considerable scotch tape
and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the
construction.
No strings or wire were to be found but there were some eyelets
in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been
used.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My note: Now I ask, does tinfoil, paper, tape, sticks, rubber,
tape with flowers and considerable scotch tape, and the whole thing
weighed 5 pounds sound like a spaceship to you?
I have presented my "evidence" that no "spaceship" crashed at
Roswell. I would be very interested in seeing your "evidence"
that a "spaceship" did crash at Roswell. I donot consider 25
to 40 year old "I remember" to be anything more than that "I
remember". That is not any sort of evidence for anything other
than a statement made by some person that thinks he could
remember everything that happened that long ago. I am waiting
in anticipation for any 'evidence" that you might present.
Regards,
Bob & Louise
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Sorry, Bob, but you're wrong again.
>
> Roswell didn't have any ground radars at all. Neither did
> Fort Worth! In fact, the 8th AAF had virtually none of them
> and couldn't even train their people.
>
> They sent a letter over to White Sands just before Roswell
> incident asking if they could use their ground radars to
> train for ECM since they didn't have any ground radars.
>
> Schmitt used for their book were lying.
> Roswell eyewitnesses, Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, Marcel,
> etc. lied.
Twitch,
You automatically believe the letter you posted to be
geniune. Even if the letter IS genuine, it certainly
doesn't mean that Roswell AAF Base wasn't protected by
nearby radar installation (perhaps White Sands, only 100
miles from Roswell). It's much more believable that
Roswell AAF Base was being protected by radar, than to
believe it wasn't and that all of those eyewitnesses are
lying. Once again, the government version flies in the
face of reason and eyewitness testimony.
Bob
Frank A. Roos
Bob & Louise wrote:
Was'nt there a Radar Cross Section test rig facility somewhere nearby?
--
Frank A. Roos
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, Bob, but you're wrong again.
>>
>> Roswell didn't have any ground radars at all. Neither did
>> Fort Worth! In fact, the 8th AAF had virtually none of them
>> and couldn't even train their people.
>>
>> They sent a letter over to White Sands just before Roswell
>> incident asking if they could use their ground radars to
>> train for ECM since they didn't have any ground radars.
>>
>> Which once again shows that the eyewitnesses Randle and
>> Schmitt used for their book were lying.
>> Unfortunately, all of that shows that most of the quoted
>> Roswell eyewitnesses, Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, Marcel,
>> etc. lied.
>
> Twitch,
> You automatically believe the letter you posted to be
> geniune.
Isn't it interesting, any document which supports a
believers view is automatically genuine. And document which
doesn't isn't.
The letters are genuine.
>Even if the letter IS genuine, it certainly
> doesn't mean that Roswell AAF Base wasn't protected by
> nearby radar installation (perhaps White Sands, only 100
> miles from Roswell).
What would they be protected from? The Russian's didn't
have intercontinental aircraft of the variety we did. But,
the intelligence was starting to worry about the Russian
capability to attack us in our homeland.
Further, White Sands couldn't see much of the land North of
Roswell since there are mountains in the way.
>It's much more believable that
> Roswell AAF Base was being protected by radar, than to
> believe it wasn't and that all of those eyewitnesses are
> lying. Once again, the government version flies in the
> face of reason and eyewitness testimony.
What reason? You state that it's much more believeable but
fail to provide any evidence for the "facts" you believe.
In fact, there were very few SCR radars available in the US.
The US gov't had given them to the countries we pulled out
of in the belief that we wouldn't need them. As a result,
there were probably less than 15 such radars in the US at
this time.
Alamorgordo had one, being used by the NYU/Watson Labs
constant-altitude balloon project (part of Mogul), and White
Sands had one which was heavily modified to track V2
missiles. Project Thunderstorm had about 4 of them and
almost everyone else wanted some of the beasts.
RAAF and FWAAF didn't have any ground radars as was the
problem at Tucson, Arizona also.
There was a crying need to teach ECM and "Windows" to flight
crews and the 8th AF didn't have the means to do so.
Therefore they sent the request asking if they could use the
radars at White Sands. White Sands said no.
If your eyewitnesses and the facts don't agree, possibly
your eyewitnesses are incorrect?
Bob & Louise
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, Bob, but you're wrong again.
> >>
> >> Roswell didn't have any ground radars at all. Neither did
> >> Fort Worth! In fact, the 8th AAF had virtually none of them
> >> and couldn't even train their people.
> >>
> >> They sent a letter over to White Sands just before Roswell
> >> incident asking if they could use their ground radars to
> >> train for ECM since they didn't have any ground radars.
> >>
> >> Which once again shows that the eyewitnesses Randle and
> >> Schmitt used for their book were lying.
> >> Unfortunately, all of that shows that most of the quoted
> >> Roswell eyewitnesses, Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, Marcel,
> >> etc. lied.
> >
> > Twitch,
> > You automatically believe the letter you posted to be
> > geniune.
>
> Isn't it interesting, any document which supports a
> believers view is automatically genuine. And document which
> doesn't isn't.
>
> The letters are genuine.
Twitch,
As I've stated before, we're at an impasse. We question/discredit
each other's sources. There has been an adequate amount of non-truth
coming from both sides as to justify both sides to not trust each
other. You and I might as well just discuss the weather.
Bob
Bob & Louise
Harry Bosch wrote:
>
> I have presented my "evidence" that no "spaceship" crashed at
> Roswell. I would be very interested in seeing your "evidence"
> that a "spaceship" did crash at Roswell. I donot consider 25
> to 40 year old "I remember" to be anything more than that "I
> remember". That is not any sort of evidence for anything other
> than a statement made by some person that thinks he could
> remember everything that happened that long ago. I am waiting
> in anticipation for any 'evidence" that you might present.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harry
Harry Bosch,
If I had "skeptic-proof", irrefutable evidence in my posession that
a spaceship did indeed land in 1947 Roswell, I would be famous for
it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, were stuck
with the statements of a government that has a history of some lying, and
statements from a citizenry that has a history of some hoaxing, and reports
from a media that is constantly being pressured from both sides. All we're
doing in these newsgroups, is discounting each other's documentation
and "evidence".
Bob
Robert S. Huber
Frankly, I find it remarkable that both of you have the energy to continue
this discussion with such vigor. I've often wondered what vitamins Twitch
takes that allow him to continue this struggle without rest.
But Bob, ultimately the burden of proof is on you. Where is the ship?
Where is the debris that has legendary amazing properties? Where are the
bodies of aliens? Produce any of these things, and you've won.
--
All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself
to deviations. It simply _is_. Take it moment by moment and you will
find that we are all, as I've said before, bugs in amber.
(paraphrased from a Tralfamadorian zoo keeper)
Robert S. Huber
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Harry Bosch wrote:
> >
> > I have presented my "evidence" that no "spaceship" crashed at
> > Roswell. I would be very interested in seeing your "evidence"
> > that a "spaceship" did crash at Roswell. I donot consider 25
> > to 40 year old "I remember" to be anything more than that "I
> > remember". That is not any sort of evidence for anything other
> > than a statement made by some person that thinks he could
> > remember everything that happened that long ago. I am waiting
> > in anticipation for any 'evidence" that you might present.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Harry
>
> Harry Bosch,
> If I had "skeptic-proof", irrefutable evidence in my posession that
> a spaceship did indeed land in 1947 Roswell, I would be famous for
> it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, were stuck
> with the statements of a government that has a history of some lying, and
> statements from a citizenry that has a history of some hoaxing, and reports
> from a media that is constantly being pressured from both sides. All we're
> doing in these newsgroups, is discounting each other's documentation
> and "evidence".
> Bob
And in one simple statement, you've just pointed out how badly your entire
argument sucks. Have a nice day Bob. :)
Bob & Louise
> >
> > Harry Bosch,
> > If I had "skeptic-proof", irrefutable evidence in my posession that
> > a spaceship did indeed land in 1947 Roswell, I would be famous for
> > it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, were stuck
> > with the statements of a government that has a history of some lying, and
> > statements from a citizenry that has a history of some hoaxing, and reports
> > from a media that is constantly being pressured from both sides. All we're
> > doing in these newsgroups, is discounting each other's documentation
> > and "evidence".
> > Bob
>
> And in one simple statement, you've just pointed out how badly your entire
> argument sucks. Have a nice day Bob. :)
>
Robert S. Huber,
No, in one simple statement I've pointed out how badly EVERYONE'S
argument sucks in an environment where EVERYONE'S source of
information is easily portrayed as unreliable due to past falsehoods,
omissions, inaccuracies and percieved agendas.
Bob
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, Bob, but you're wrong again.
>> >>
>> >> Roswell didn't have any ground radars at all. Neither did
>> >> Fort Worth! In fact, the 8th AAF had virtually none of them
>> >> and couldn't even train their people.
>> >>
>> >> They sent a letter over to White Sands just before Roswell
>> >> incident asking if they could use their ground radars to
>> >> train for ECM since they didn't have any ground radars.
>> >>
>> >> Which once again shows that the eyewitnesses Randle and
>> >> Schmitt used for their book were lying.
>> >> Unfortunately, all of that shows that most of the quoted
>> >> Roswell eyewitnesses, Ragsdale, Dennis, Kaufmann, Marcel,
>> >> etc. lied.
>> >
>> > Twitch,
>> > You automatically believe the letter you posted to be
>> > geniune.
>>
>> Isn't it interesting, any document which supports a
>> believers view is automatically genuine. And document which
>> doesn't isn't.
>>
>> The letters are genuine.
>
> Twitch,
> As I've stated before, we're at an impasse. We question/discredit
> each other's sources.
No Bob, I discredit your sources, you question mine without
any evidence.
There is a difference.
>There has been an adequate amount of non-truth
> coming from both sides as to justify both sides to not trust each
> other. You and I might as well just discuss the weather.
Actually, if you look at it you'll see that most of the
non-truth has come from the people who are making big bucks
off a belief in UFOs.
The Gov't has been relatively truthful. That doesn't mean
we should automatically believe them. But, their story is
at least consistent with their known actions.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
hu...@scripps.edu (Robert S. Huber) wrote:
>Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >
>> > Isn't it interesting, any document which supports a
>> > believers view is automatically genuine. And document which
>> > doesn't isn't.
>> >
>> > The letters are genuine.
>>
>> Twitch,
>> As I've stated before, we're at an impasse. We question/discredit
>> each other's sources. There has been an adequate amount of non-truth
>> coming from both sides as to justify both sides to not trust each
>> other. You and I might as well just discuss the weather.
>> Bob
>
>Frankly, I find it remarkable that both of you have the energy to continue
>this discussion with such vigor. I've often wondered what vitamins Twitch
>takes that allow him to continue this struggle without rest.
Tuna!
>
>But Bob, ultimately the burden of proof is on you. Where is the ship?
>Where is the debris that has legendary amazing properties? Where are the
>bodies of aliens? Produce any of these things, and you've won.
>
Definitely.
Heck, we can't even get the folks to agree on where the
saucer crashed, how many saucers there were, etc.
If you read the popular books they spend a lot of their
effort disproving each other.
Friedman's open letter to Kevin Randle is pretty damning.
Randle's destruction of the MJ-12 papers and the Corona
crash site is pretty damning.
The IUFO Museum's affadavit is pretty damning to Randle's
crash site.
Etc.
They all believe, or claim to, that something happened.
They just can't agree on any of the particulars.
Harry Bosch
Bob & Louise wrote:
Bob.
I would like to know what is unreliable about a newspaper
article from July, 1947? I have disregarded all other
"data" as possibly inaccurate, especially 25 to 40 year
old remembrances that are shaky at best. I posted the
Roswell Article that describes the debris as Brazel
described it. I have still not seen any information you
have posted that disputes this description, other than
personal interviews long past the date of the so called
"spaceship crash". I would be very happy if you could
show me how tinfoil, paper, sticks, rubber and scotch
tape could possibly be debris from a crashed spaceship.
You have not only not presented "skeptic-proof", irrefutable
evidence that a spaceship crashed in 1947 Roswell, you have
not presented any evidence that a spaceship crashed at
Roswell except for some long ago memories. I am still
waiting for ANY evidence that a spaceship crashed in 1947 at
Roswell or any place else on this earth.
Bob & Louise
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Actually, if you look at it you'll see that most of the
> non-truth has come from the people who are making big bucks
> off a belief in UFOs.
>
> The Gov't has been relatively truthful. That doesn't mean
> we should automatically believe them. But, their story is
> at least consistent with their known actions.
Twitch,
"Their KNOWN actions"??? Known by who? Certainly not known by
the public. Your "proof" and "evidence" of Government actions
comes only from one source: the Government.
Bob
Bob & Louise
> hu...@scripps.edu (Robert S. Huber) wrote:
> >But Bob, ultimately the burden of proof is on you. Where is the ship?
> >Where is the debris that has legendary amazing properties? Where are the
> >bodies of aliens? Produce any of these things, and you've won.
Robert S. Huber,
Well, ultimately, we aren't allowed to search government buildings.
A government can hide anything it wants to hide, by using the
shield of "National Security". Also, a criminal President can hide
anything he wants to hide, by using the shield of "Executive Privilege".
Bob
Robert S. Huber
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
So? That's your problem. If you really and truly believe that an alien
ship crashed in Roswell, then by all means fight to have the evidence
exposed. But if you intend to keep yapping about the subject in public,
you can't really complain if you're met with a great deal of skepticism
when you present no evidence to support your claims. Whether you like it
or not, the burden of proof is on you, regardless of the government's
ability to hide the truth.
And might I add, you've already demonstrated your willingness to latch on
to essentially any flakey notion that someone puts in your head. Weren't
you arguing only a few weeks ago that a smudge in the corner of a painting
of the Virgin Mary was a UFO? Even a chimp can distinguish between a
square and a circle Bob.
Bob & Louise
Harry Bosch wrote:
>
> You have not only not presented "skeptic-proof", irrefutable
> evidence that a spaceship crashed in 1947 Roswell, you have
> not presented any evidence that a spaceship crashed at
> Roswell except for some long ago memories. I am still
> waiting for ANY evidence that a spaceship crashed in 1947 at
> Roswell or any place else on this earth.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harry
Harry Bosch,
I'm not convinced, and am not trying to convince anyone, that a
spaceship crashed at Roswell. I'm trying to wake "skeptics" up
to the fact that "long ago memories" DO matter, and that our
government has the power to hide anything it wants. To me, this
all adds up to an unknown Roswell 1947 situation. "Skeptics"
have concluded that no spaceship crashed at Roswell, and they're
basing that conclusion on government reports. "Skeptics" also
refuse to consider that our government has intimidated any of the
Roswell witnesses. Why? Because no such intimidation has been re-
ported in government documents. If you're looking for the space-
ship, ask the government if you can do a total search of all
government property. They'll be glad to accomodate you. LOL!
Bob
Robert S. Huber
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> "Skeptics"
> have concluded that no spaceship crashed at Roswell, and they're
> basing that conclusion on government reports.
... along with the complete and total lack of alien ships crashed or
flying in the years between 1947 and 1998. Wouldn't you think that if an
alien ship crashed, their buddies might come around to find out what
happened to them? Oh, but I forget that no matter how advanced these
aliens are, the mighty US government is able to suppress knowledge of
their existence.
> "Skeptics" also
> refuse to consider that our government has intimidated any of the
> Roswell witnesses.
By any chance did you watch the old TV series "In Search Of" when you were
younger (host: Leonard Nimoy)? I would recommend you go back and have a
look. You'll find that the testimony of the "witnesses" has changed
remarkably between when this series aired (late 1970s ?) and now.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Yep. But, the use of resources such as indicated by the
INSCOM papers is very telling.
Thosands of pages of documents all showing that they took
actions totally consistent with what the other documents
tell us is a real piece of solid evidence.
Also, no one has yet shown any gov't released document to be
a hoax. All the hoaxes have been pro-UFOs, not anti.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> hu...@scripps.edu (Robert S. Huber) wrote:
>
>> >But Bob, ultimately the burden of proof is on you. Where is the ship?
>> >Where is the debris that has legendary amazing properties? Where are the
>> >bodies of aliens? Produce any of these things, and you've won.
>
> Robert S. Huber,
> Well, ultimately, we aren't allowed to search government buildings.
> A government can hide anything it wants to hide, by using the
> shield of "National Security". Also, a criminal President can hide
> anything he wants to hide, by using the shield of "Executive Privilege".
Ah, Bob, tell Nixon that he didn't have to yield up the
tapes!
Harry Bosch
Bob & Louise wrote:
>
> > hu...@scripps.edu (Robert S. Huber) wrote:
>
> > >But Bob, ultimately the burden of proof is on you. Where is the ship?
> > >Where is the debris that has legendary amazing properties? Where are the
> > >bodies of aliens? Produce any of these things, and you've won.
>
> Robert S. Huber,
> Well, ultimately, we aren't allowed to search government buildings.
> A government can hide anything it wants to hide, by using the
> shield of "National Security". Also, a criminal President can hide
> anything he wants to hide, by using the shield of "Executive Privilege".
Hi Bob.
Now why does this sound like another cop-out? It seems the
ET believer always has a cop-out for why they have no evidence.
1. The lab lost my piece of alien metal.
2. Somebody stole my piece of alien spaceship.
3. The government confiscated all of my evidence.
4. Etc, etc, etc.
Wouldn't it just be more honest to say "I really don't have any
evidence, I just believe that I'm right"? I would certainly
have more respect for the "believers", and I'm sure that most
everyone else would also.
I still wait for ANY evidence that an alien spaceship
crashed at Roswell in 1947, or anywhere else on earth
at any time, ANY evidence. I sure won't hold my breath
though, that would be a losing situation.
BTW Bob. If you are correct about "National Security"
and "Executive Privilege". Why did Nixon have to cough
up those tapes? Why is Clinton being investigated for
various crimes? Why did the Army catch hell for certain
tests on troops? Why is there a headline every day in
the news, that some person or government agency is being
investigated?
Sounds like you don't like the way our democracy is run.
As bad as you think it is, it is better than any other
government on earth. If you don't think so, maybe you
should do some traveling and check out other governments,
I'm sure it would open your eyes. Or maybe you should
get people that feel as you do to vote, that's the way
we get things done in this country.
I'm still waiting for something other than the standard
cop-out, Bob.
Bob & Louise
Harry Bosch wrote:
>
> Bob & Louise wrote:
> > Robert S. Huber,
> > Well, ultimately, we aren't allowed to search government buildings.
> > A government can hide anything it wants to hide, by using the
> > shield of "National Security". Also, a criminal President can hide
> > anything he wants to hide, by using the shield of "Executive Privilege".
> > Bob
>
> Hi Bob. <snip>
> I still wait for ANY evidence that an alien spaceship
> crashed at Roswell in 1947, or anywhere else on earth
> at any time, ANY evidence. I sure won't hold my breath
> though, that would be a losing situation.
> BTW Bob. If you are correct about "National Security"
> and "Executive Privilege". Why did Nixon have to cough
> up those tapes? Why is Clinton being investigated for
> various crimes? Why did the Army catch hell for certain
> tests on troops? Why is there a headline every day in
> the news, that some person or government agency is being
> investigated?
> Regards,
>
> Harry
Harry,
That's easy to explain, and I think that in the back of
your mind, you already know the answer. The forces that have
been able to break through National Security and Executive
Privilege barriers have been highly-motivated partisan
left-wing or right-wing movements that have a massive force
in place in Washington and have a huge national constituancy
that makes a groundswell of public opinion. When it comes to
to UFO matters, no such powerful forces exist. There's nothing
wrong with our system. The relative weakness of the UFO
"movement" is caused by the relatively low numbers of people
who consider UFO matters as being important issues.
Bob
Bob & Louise
Robert S. Huber wrote:
>
> So? That's your problem. If you really and truly believe that an alien
> ship crashed in Roswell, then by all means fight to have the evidence
> exposed. But if you intend to keep yapping about the subject in public,
> you can't really complain if you're met with a great deal of skepticism
> when you present no evidence to support your claims. Whether you like it
> or not, the burden of proof is on you, regardless of the government's
> ability to hide the truth.
> And might I add, you've already demonstrated your willingness to latch on
> to essentially any flakey notion that someone puts in your head. Weren't
> you arguing only a few weeks ago that a smudge in the corner of a painting
> of the Virgin Mary was a UFO? Even a chimp can distinguish between a
> square and a circle Bob.
Robert S. Huber,
A. I never knew WHAT to think about Roswell, because there are huge
diagreements amongst highly reputable people regarding the facts
of the case.
B. After all this time, you still think that "UFO" means "Alien Aircraft".
The unidentified object in the painting is placed in the sky. No one
has identified it. Therefore, it is an image of an Unidentified Flying
Object. A UFO.
Bob
I H Spedding
IIRC, when Woodward and Bernstein began investigating the Watergate
burglary they didn't have have the support of any "massive force in
place in Washington." They were just a couple of determined reporters
who scented a good story and, through sheer dogged persistence,
gradually dug up the truth. The deeper they dug, the more bits if
evidence they unearthed until they were able to piece together the
whole story.
Numerous UFO researchers have been beavering away at the subject for
around 50 years and, apart from stories from dubious witnesses, the
only hard evidence they've found suggests that the authorities haven't
found much that's worth following up and certainly have no UFO's in
custody, either intact or in bits.
Ian
I H Spedding
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:56:46 -0800, Bob & Louise
<lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
(...)
> Harry Bosch,
> I'm not convinced, and am not trying to convince anyone, that a
> spaceship crashed at Roswell. I'm trying to wake "skeptics" up
> to the fact that "long ago memories" DO matter, and that our
> government has the power to hide anything it wants. To me, this
> all adds up to an unknown Roswell 1947 situation. "Skeptics"
> have concluded that no spaceship crashed at Roswell, and they're
> basing that conclusion on government reports. "Skeptics" also
> refuse to consider that our government has intimidated any of the
> Roswell witnesses. Why? Because no such intimidation has been re-
> ported in government documents. If you're looking for the space-
> ship, ask the government if you can do a total search of all
> government property. They'll be glad to accomodate you. LOL!
> Bob
"Skeptics" regard uncorroborated memories of events long past as
unreliable and can cite research which supports that view. Why do you
treat them more seriously?
As for intimidation, it doesn't seem to have worked very well judging
by the number "witnesses" who have come forward claiming to have seen
something.
And you're quite right, no responsible government is going to grant
unrestricted access to secret facilities just because True Believers
have convinced themselves that only a vast conspiracy can account for
the lack of tangible evidence to support their beliefs.
Ian
Harry Bosch
Cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out.
BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS.
What about the evidence that a spaceship crashed
at Roswell or any other place on earth?
Still waiting, Bob.
Harry Bosch
You are right on Ian.
BTW Bob, I am still waiting for ANY evidence that anything
other than a 5 pound spaceship made of tinfoil, tough paper,
sticks and held together with Scotch tape that was powered
by a rubber wind-up FTL, interstellar space warp drive,
crashed at Roswell in 1947.
Hell, I will be agreeing to take half baked 40 year old
memories for evidence pretty soon. (SIGH)
Bob & Louise
I H Spedding wrote:
>
> IIRC, when Woodward and Bernstein began investigating the Watergate
> burglary they didn't have have the support of any "massive force in
> place in Washington." They were just a couple of determined reporters
> who scented a good story and, through sheer dogged persistence,
> gradually dug up the truth. The deeper they dug, the more bits if
> evidence they unearthed until they were able to piece together the
> whole story.
>
> Numerous UFO researchers have been beavering away at the subject for
> around 50 years and, apart from stories from dubious witnesses, the
> only hard evidence they've found suggests that the authorities haven't
> found much that's worth following up and certainly have no UFO's in
> custody, either intact or in bits.
>
> Ian
Ian,
Surely you jest! Woodward and Bernstien were reporting for the
ultra-left Washington Post. The Post smelled blood when it first
suspected that the Watergate break-in might be connected to the
Nixon White House. Hate to break this to you, but America is
politically divided up between Left and Right. Democrats and
Republicans. The typical U.S. citizen has never even heard of
"UFO Skeptics" vs "UFO Believers", and couldn't care less about
UFOs.
Bob
Bob & Louise
I H Spedding wrote:
>
> "Skeptics" regard uncorroborated memories of events long past as
> unreliable and can cite research which supports that view. Why do you
> treat them more seriously?
>
> As for intimidation, it doesn't seem to have worked very well judging
> by the number "witnesses" who have come forward claiming to have seen
> something.
>
> And you're quite right, no responsible government is going to grant
> unrestricted access to secret facilities just because True Believers
> have convinced themselves that only a vast conspiracy can account for
> the lack of tangible evidence to support their beliefs.
>
> Ian
Ian Spedding,
I know from life experience that the average person can recall in
great detail, every unusually traumatic and exciting event they've
ever experienced, and remember it well into old age.
The government is no longer worried about Roswell eyewitnesses
talking, because most Americans don't care about 1947 Roswell.
Well, Ian, it appears that our "security-concious" government has
no problem with flying its' "secret aircraft" in plain view, so
why not open its' "secret facilities"? Actually, I have no problem
with national security measures. The debate we have here is:
Who's security is being protected? The security of the American people,
or the security of the American government/military?
Bob
Bob & Louise
Harry Bosch wrote:
> Cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
> cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
> cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
> cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out.
>
> BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS.
>
> at Roswell or any other place on earth?
>
> Still waiting, Bob.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harry
Harry Bosch,
If you want such proof, you should ask someone who believes
that a spaceship crashed there in 1947. I only SUSPECT that
a spaceship may have crashed there in 1947. Or maybe you think that this
is a "black or white" subject, and there is no room for an un-
decided viewpoint?
Bob
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
If you suspect, you are not undecided. Please post the
evidence which is sufficent to make you suspect that there
was a spaceship crash in 1947.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I H Spedding wrote:
>>
>> "Skeptics" regard uncorroborated memories of events long past as
>> unreliable and can cite research which supports that view. Why do you
>> treat them more seriously?
>>
>> As for intimidation, it doesn't seem to have worked very well judging
>> by the number "witnesses" who have come forward claiming to have seen
>> something.
>>
>> And you're quite right, no responsible government is going to grant
>> unrestricted access to secret facilities just because True Believers
>> have convinced themselves that only a vast conspiracy can account for
>> the lack of tangible evidence to support their beliefs.
>>
>> Ian
>
> Ian Spedding,
> I know from life experience that the average person can recall in
> great detail, every unusually traumatic and exciting event they've
> ever experienced, and remember it well into old age.
The problem is that virtually all modern research shows that
the mind changes it with time, with new data, etc.
Everyone who was alive when Kennedy was killed always says
"I will never forget what I was doing when I heard about
it!"
Research shows that they do forget what they were doing and
alter their memories substantially. In fact, the subjects
stated that, if the documents weren't written in their
handwritting, they wouldn't believe what they said in the
old days.
>
> The government is no longer worried about Roswell eyewitnesses
> talking, because most Americans don't care about 1947 Roswell.
After July 8, 1947, the gov't didn't care.
>
> Well, Ian, it appears that our "security-concious" government has
> no problem with flying its' "secret aircraft" in plain view, so
> why not open its' "secret facilities"?
Have you seen the Aurora?
<snip.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"Searcher" <pictu...@cruzio.com> wrote:
<snip>
>In what hanger was the infamous photo of the <cover-up> weather balloon
>taken?
<snip.
It was taken in Ramey's office.
It wasn't a coverup photo since even Marcel admitted (at
least twice) that the photogs saw the real debris. Johnson,
the photog who took those snapshots, said he unpackaged the
debris!
I H Spedding
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 20:00:27 -0800, Bob & Louise
<lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I H Spedding wrote:
>>
>> "Skeptics" regard uncorroborated memories of events long past as
>> unreliable and can cite research which supports that view. Why do you
>> treat them more seriously?
>>
>> As for intimidation, it doesn't seem to have worked very well judging
>> by the number "witnesses" who have come forward claiming to have seen
>> something.
>>
>> And you're quite right, no responsible government is going to grant
>> unrestricted access to secret facilities just because True Believers
>> have convinced themselves that only a vast conspiracy can account for
>> the lack of tangible evidence to support their beliefs.
>>
>> Ian
>
> Ian Spedding,
> I know from life experience that the average person can recall in
> great detail, every unusually traumatic and exciting event they've
> ever experienced, and remember it well into old age.
>
> The government is no longer worried about Roswell eyewitnesses
> talking, because most Americans don't care about 1947 Roswell.
>
> Well, Ian, it appears that our "security-concious" government has
> no problem with flying its' "secret aircraft" in plain view, so
> why not open its' "secret facilities"? Actually, I have no problem
> with national security measures. The debate we have here is:
> Who's security is being protected? The security of the American people,
> or the security of the American government/military?
> Bob
We all have vivid memories of experiences which made a strong
impression on us but how often do we check back to see if they are
still accurate in detail, assuming it's still possible? Don't forget
that a lot of human memory is considered to be made up of narratives -
post hoc rationalisations constructed around fragmented data - which
might or might not be accurate accounts of what actually happened.
You can't be sure about them unless you're able to find evidence to
corroborate them.
As for national security, is there a significant difference between
the security of the American people and the security of the American
government/military? After all, in the case of a threat to the
country, would the national defence benefit or be harmed if the state
were "decapitated", i.e. the civilian and military command structures
were eliminated.
You might not like what the government does or the way it does it -
and you would have a lot of company - but the various flavours of
Western parliamentary democracy are the least worst of the available
alternatives.
Would you prefer to see the US "Balkanised" into a lot of feuding
little mini-states, some of which would be run by right-wing militias
or drugs warlords?
Ian
I H Spedding
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 19:38:35 -0800, Bob & Louise
<lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
The point remains that a couple of reporters were able to ferret out
the truth about a conspiracy in spite of a concerted effort to hide it
at the very highest levels. The fact that UFO researchers haven't
been able to uncover a conspiracy to conceal the existence of ET-UFO's
despite 50 years of trying suggests that there is nothing to find.
Ian
Scott
In <6dbv51$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
[people's recall of the moment they heard about JFK's death]
>Research shows that they do forget what they were doing and
>alter their memories substantially. In fact, the subjects
>stated that, if the documents weren't written in their
>handwritting, they wouldn't believe what they said in the
>old days.
twitch, While I will stipulate to the fact the human memory is
fallible, degrades with time, and is open to suggestion from many
different sources, did any of this research show the people forgot
that JFK was killed ?
This is the important kernel of truth that ties all of the
testimony together (speaking of the JFK killing). Everyone agrees that
the 35th President of the United States of America was killed by a
bullet fired from some gun somewhere, because they *remember* it.
Although people may forget details of that day, like what they
were wearing, what they had for lunch, maybe even the exact date or
time was, they still know the basic truths of the incident.
My point is (and I do have one), is that I don't think it is
wise to throw out all of an individual's story because some points
have dimmed with time. What is consistent in all of the testimony (if
anything) ? If you find that, you may be getting closer the
*important* details. Now, whether it is worth all the time to do all
that work is up to the investigator(s).
--
Scott
"For every problem, there is one solution which is simple,
neat and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken
Scott
In <34f99c28...@news.u-net.com>, sped...@mognet.u-net.com (I H
Spedding) wrote:
(to Bob):
>The point remains that a couple of reporters were able to ferret out
>the truth about a conspiracy in spite of a concerted effort to hide it
>at the very highest levels. The fact that UFO researchers haven't
>been able to uncover a conspiracy to conceal the existence of ET-UFO's
>despite 50 years of trying suggests that there is nothing to find.
Ian, that is a good point. There are thousands of "Woodwards
and Bersteins" out there, hundreds of "Deep Throats". Why no
breakthroughs ? Why is there no Pulitzer Prize for "Excellence in
Extraterrestrial Journalism" ?
Once you've peeled back the lid of the conspiracy, how do you
know what you see inside is the truth ? Who confirms the story ? Are
there even any reliable/credible sources left ? Hasn't everybody
become "contaminated" ?
Harry Bosch
Bob & Louise wrote:
>
> Harry Bosch wrote:
> > Cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
> > cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
> > cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out,
> > cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out, cop-out.
> >
> > BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS.
> >
> > What about the evidence that a spaceship crashed
> > at Roswell or any other place on earth?
> >
> > Still waiting, Bob.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Harry
>
> Harry Bosch,
> If you want such proof, you should ask someone who believes
> that a spaceship crashed there in 1947. I only SUSPECT that
> a spaceship may have crashed there in 1947. Or maybe you think that this
> is a "black or white" subject, and there is no room for an un-
> decided viewpoint?
Now I thought that is what this thread was all about.
I guess it is easier to change the thread than admit
that there is no evidence.
(SIGH)
Alan DeKok
In article <34fa992d...@news.newsguy.com>, Scott <s...@ns.net> wrote:
>
> twitch, While I will stipulate to the fact the human memory is
>fallible, degrades with time, and is open to suggestion from many
>different sources, did any of this research show the people forgot
>that JFK was killed ?
The research you want would naturally include a group which wasn't
exposed to JFK conspiracy theories ad nauseum over the past 35 years,
wouldn't it?
> This is the important kernel of truth that ties all of the
>testimony together (speaking of the JFK killing). Everyone agrees that
>the 35th President of the United States of America was killed by a
>bullet fired from some gun somewhere, because they *remember* it.
And that memory could NOT be influenced or modified by what they've
seen since then. Even when they've gone on record 20 years ago as to
what they remember, their memories NOW are more believable. After
all, they *remember* it.
> Although people may forget details of that day, like what they
>were wearing, what they had for lunch, maybe even the exact date or
>time was, they still know the basic truths of the incident.
Like "Something happened".
> My point is (and I do have one), is that I don't think it is
>wise to throw out all of an individual's story because some points
>have dimmed with time. What is consistent in all of the testimony (if
>anything) ? If you find that, you may be getting closer the
>*important* details. Now, whether it is worth all the time to do all
>that work is up to the investigator(s).
Most UFO researchers disagree with their purported "colleagues"
about what actually happened at Roswell. Given that fine, solid,
foundation, I'm inclined to give it the ol' heave-ho.
Alan DeKok.
Bob & Louise
> > If you want such proof, you should ask someone who believes
> > that a spaceship crashed there in 1947. I only SUSPECT that
> > a spaceship may have crashed there in 1947. Or maybe you think that this
> > is a "black or white" subject, and there is no room for an un-
> > decided viewpoint?
>
> evidence which is sufficent to make you suspect that there
> was a spaceship crash in 1947.
Twitch,
What is the correct wording that I can use to convey the
fact to you that I am undecided on Roswell? Also, it is
useless for me to list all of the eyewitness testimony of
the sights and sounds of the alledged crash, because you'll
just say that they are lies.
Bob
Bob & Louise
> > I know from life experience that the average person can recall in
> > great detail, every unusually traumatic and exciting event they've
> > ever experienced, and remember it well into old age.
> Twitch wrote:
> The problem is that virtually all modern research shows that
> the mind changes it with time, with new data, etc.
> Everyone who was alive when Kennedy was killed always says
> "I will never forget what I was doing when I heard about
> it!"
> Research shows that they do forget what they were doing and
> alter their memories substantially. In fact, the subjects
> stated that, if the documents weren't written in their
> handwritting, they wouldn't believe what they said in the
> old days.
Twitch,
You and your "research" are wrong, and you have just now
insulted everyone who has experienced something shocking
in their lives.
Bob
Bob & Louise
I H Spedding wrote: (referring to Nixon's ouster)
>
> The point remains that a couple of reporters were able to ferret out
> the truth about a conspiracy in spite of a concerted effort to hide it
> at the very highest levels. The fact that UFO researchers haven't
> been able to uncover a conspiracy to conceal the existence of ET-UFO's
> despite 50 years of trying suggests that there is nothing to find.
>
> Ian
Ian Spedding,
You sound silly claiming that ufo researchers have the same clout
in Washington D.C. as did the conglomeration of: Woodward, Bernstien,
The Washington Post, the Democrat-dominated national media, the
majority of the U.S. population, and the entire Democrat political
machine.
Bob
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Harry Bosch,
>> > If you want such proof, you should ask someone who believes
>> > that a spaceship crashed there in 1947. I only SUSPECT that
>> > a spaceship may have crashed there in 1947. Or maybe you think that this
>> > is a "black or white" subject, and there is no room for an un-
>> > decided viewpoint?
>>
>> If you suspect, you are not undecided. Please post the
>> evidence which is sufficent to make you suspect that there
>> was a spaceship crash in 1947.
>
> Twitch,
> What is the correct wording that I can use to convey the
> fact to you that I am undecided on Roswell?
That would be the correct wording if you were not giving
evidence to the contrary.
>Also, it is
> useless for me to list all of the eyewitness testimony of
> the sights and sounds of the alledged crash, because you'll
> just say that they are lies.
No. I will post some evidence showing that they disagree
with each other, that they have changed their story, that
they have lied, etc.
Quite a different thing.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>In <6dbv51$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>[people's recall of the moment they heard about JFK's death]
>
>>Research shows that they do forget what they were doing and
>>alter their memories substantially. In fact, the subjects
>>stated that, if the documents weren't written in their
>>handwritting, they wouldn't believe what they said in the
>>old days.
>
> twitch, While I will stipulate to the fact the human memory is
>fallible, degrades with time, and is open to suggestion from many
>different sources, did any of this research show the people forgot
>that JFK was killed ?
That was not the goal of it.
But, lots of research shows that people can remember things
which didn't happen.
Which destroys the rest of your argument which I have thus
snipped.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> > Ian Spedding,
>> > I know from life experience that the average person can recall in
>> > great detail, every unusually traumatic and exciting event they've
>> > ever experienced, and remember it well into old age.
>
>> Twitch wrote:
>> The problem is that virtually all modern research shows that
>> the mind changes it with time, with new data, etc.
>> Everyone who was alive when Kennedy was killed always says
>> "I will never forget what I was doing when I heard about
>> it!"
>> Research shows that they do forget what they were doing and
>> alter their memories substantially. In fact, the subjects
>> stated that, if the documents weren't written in their
>> handwritting, they wouldn't believe what they said in the
>> old days.
>
> Twitch,
> You and your "research" are wrong, and you have just now
> insulted everyone who has experienced something shocking
> in their lives.
Bob,
It wasn't my research but the research of professionals in
that field.
I'm sorry if the truth insults anyone, but I prefer it to
the alternative.
Scott
In <6deik3$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>> twitch, While I will stipulate to the fact the human memory is
>>fallible, degrades with time, and is open to suggestion from many
>>different sources, did any of this research show the people forgot
>>that JFK was killed ?
>That was not the goal of it.
Fair enough. In another (Roswell) thread you told somebody
they could ask you for clarification if something you posted wasn't
clear to him (Marty, I think). I not sure if that was an open
invitation to everyone, but I'm asking for clarification of the study
that we are discussing. I must admit I am not familiar with the study,
but for the sake of argument, I am willing to take your word for it.
What was the goal of this study ?
What was it trying to prove ?
>But, lots of research shows that people can remember things
>which didn't happen.
I can accept that. That conclusion seems reasonable and it
fits with my personal data points. Was *this* the goal of the above
referred to study ?
>Which destroys the rest of your argument which I have thus
>snipped.
OK. Then let's recap.
I agree that human memories are fallible, leaky, and are
subject to suggestions of events that did not take place.
I also agree that the study you referred to supports this
conclusion (what I've seen of it anyway).
With that said, I don't think you can use the results of this
study to show that *all* of the content of *all* memories are false.
You can say that they are suspect, but not *proven* false.
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I just
want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
I H Spedding
From my reading of "All The President's Men" I don't think Woodward
and Bernstein felt they had much clout compared the might of an
incumbent president and the Republican political machine.
Are you saying that UFO researchers are less capable investigators
than a couple of hacks?
Ian
Bob & Louise
> > Twitch,
> > You and your "research" are wrong, and you have just now
> > insulted everyone who has experienced something shocking
> > in their lives.
> twitch wrote:
> Bob,
> It wasn't my research but the research of professionals in
> that field.
> I'm sorry if the truth insults anyone, but I prefer it to
> the alternative.
Twitch,
The reason that the research "findings" insult the average person is
that the results are bogus. As a matter of fact, the entire skeptic
mindset is to distrust one's own memory and perception, and to
depend on so-called "experts" and "officials" for the truth.
Every post of yours reflects this state of mind.
Bob
Bob & Louise
I H Spedding wrote:
Ian Spedding,
Pay attention to the contents of my writing. I listed the powerful
forces that helped Woodward & Bernstein get as far as they did.
Ufo researchers have no such support, because the number of people
who are serious about ufos, are a tiny percentage of the population.
If you believe that the power of the ufo crowd today is anywhere NEAR
the power of the early-1970's Democrats, you're off your rocker.
Bob
Bruce Hutchinson
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> scribed:
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> > Ian Spedding,
>> > I know from life experience that the average person can recall in
>> > great detail, every unusually traumatic and exciting event they've
>> > ever experienced, and remember it well into old age.
>
>> Twitch wrote:
>> The problem is that virtually all modern research shows that
>> the mind changes it with time, with new data, etc.
>> Everyone who was alive when Kennedy was killed always says
>> "I will never forget what I was doing when I heard about
>> it!"
>> Research shows that they do forget what they were doing and
>> alter their memories substantially. In fact, the subjects
>> stated that, if the documents weren't written in their
>> handwritting, they wouldn't believe what they said in the
>> old days.
>
> Twitch,
> You and your "research" are wrong, and you have just now
> insulted everyone who has experienced something shocking
> in their lives.
Interesting thread!
Bob- Here is a suggestion for an exercise to show what the expert's
research has found.
Select a "major event" in your life. This event must have happened at
least ten years ago, and at least ten others must have participated or been
present at this event.
Write a _detailed_ blow-by-blow, moment-by moment story of this event, with
particular emphsis on the most important aspects of the event. This
"report" should include all impressions you have retained over the years,
as well as detailed descriptions not only of the focus of this event, but
surrounding details as well. For instance, if the event was a car crash,
describe not only the make and model, but the condition (rusty? dirty?
color?) of the car, as well as the clothes the occupants were wearing.
In other words, detail is very important.
Now... get the other ten or so poeple to do the same thing.
I am not Earl Curly, but I bet the results will go along these lines.
- The primary focus of the event will not be in major dispute.
Examples:
Bob and Tom had a MAJOR fight-
There was a really nasty collision between a train and a car.
- Primary details will be skewed by at least 30%
Difference of opinion on who won the fight
Was it a freight train or a passenger train
How many people were in the car
What was the fight about
- Secondary details will be all over the place
What color was the car
Who came out of the fight with a broken hand
What was the resolution of the dispute
Who was bigger- Tom or Bob
Most importantly, you will have remembered many details no one else did.
Most of these details will be as vivid in your mind as if it happened
yesterday, and these "significant" details will be crucial to your
understanding of the entire event. Your first impression upon reading the
other reports will be "how did they MISS that!" or "That is NOT the way it
happened" or (and this is the most common) "That NEVER happened"! I KNOW
I saw this. Why didn't anyone else?".
After you have the reports together, share them among the participants.
You will be absolutely amazed that each and every one will have the same
reaction.
I only suggest this because you seem to be defending the Roswell memories
from the false impression that since YOUR memories of long ago are intact
and accurate, then it is possible that the Roswell memories are too.
Twitch, OTOH, is calmly citing those who have done experiments like the
above, and found that it ain't always so!
So, instead of debating those who have already proven memories can be
tricky things, try it yourself! After you have done the experiment, you
will be better able to evaluate what might have happened in 1947.
hutch
"Once an idea is created, it never disappears, no matter
how often it is disproved" -- as quoted by Milton Rothman
Bob & Louise
Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
> I only suggest this because you seem to be defending the Roswell memories
> from the false impression that since YOUR memories of long ago are intact
> and accurate, then it is possible that the Roswell memories are too.
> Twitch, OTOH, is calmly citing those who have done experiments like the
> above, and found that it ain't always so!
>
> So, instead of debating those who have already proven memories can be
> tricky things, try it yourself! After you have done the experiment, you
> will be better able to evaluate what might have happened in 1947.
>
> hutch
Bruce,
Thank you for your polite and sincere post, but I must tell you
that I disagree with putting so much emphasis on the small de-
tails of a recollection of a profound event. When someone says
that 50 years ago, they saw a crashed disc-shaped ship with
small, grayish humanoids lying dead or wounded nearby, I'm not
going to disbelieve the story because some other witness says
the little humanoids were grayish-brown. This Roswell story is not
like some car-crash incident that needs precise details related
in order to distinguish it from the hundreds of thousands of other
car-crashes. If you want to disbelieve these Roswell witnesses on
the basis that they are lying in order to make a buck, who knows,
you could be right. But to claim that their memories are time-distorted
to the point of seeing a MOGUL kite and later recollecting it as a crashed
space ship surrounded by aliens, is ludicrous.
Bob
Robert S. Huber
In article <34FBAA...@sprintmail.com>, Bob & Louise
<lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Twitch,
> > > You and your "research" are wrong, and you have just now
> > > insulted everyone who has experienced something shocking
> > > in their lives.
> > twitch wrote:
> > Bob,
> > It wasn't my research but the research of professionals in
> > that field.
> > I'm sorry if the truth insults anyone, but I prefer it to
> > the alternative.
>
> Twitch,
> The reason that the research "findings" insult the average person is
> that the results are bogus. As a matter of fact, the entire skeptic
> mindset is to distrust one's own memory and perception, and to
> depend on so-called "experts" and "officials" for the truth.
> Every post of yours reflects this state of mind.
> Bob
So, in the fifty years since Roswell, you enthusiasts must have amassed an
amazing ammount of evidence, right? Where is it Bob?
Where's the evidence Bob? *silence*
Where's the evidence Bob? *silence*
Where's the evidence Bob? *silence*
Then ... SHUT THE FUCK UP!
--
All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself
to deviations. It simply _is_. Take it moment by moment and you will
find that we are all, as I've said before, bugs in amber.
(paraphrased from a Tralfamadorian zoo keeper)
twi...@worldnet.att.net
s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>In <6deik3$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
>wrote:
>
>>s...@ns.net (Scott) wrote:
>
>>> twitch, While I will stipulate to the fact the human memory is
>>>fallible, degrades with time, and is open to suggestion from many
>>>different sources, did any of this research show the people forgot
>>>that JFK was killed ?
>
>
>>That was not the goal of it.
>
>
> Fair enough. In another (Roswell) thread you told somebody
>they could ask you for clarification if something you posted wasn't
>clear to him (Marty, I think).
As I recall, yes.
>I not sure if that was an open
>invitation to everyone,
Well, almost everyone but you.
>but I'm asking for clarification of the study
>that we are discussing. I must admit I am not familiar with the study,
>but for the sake of argument, I am willing to take your word for it.
It is a famous study conducted at the University of
Washington.
>
> What was the goal of this study ?
To continue investigations into human memory and how the
brain stores and retrieves information. There are at least
two different models of how this is done.
I'm not certain, myself, how it would be possible to
differentiate between them.
>
> What was it trying to prove ?
>
It was investigating how humans store and retrieve
information. It was part of the effort to show that human
memory was not like a tape recorder which played back info
unchanged but the info was capable of being modified by
later info.
>>But, lots of research shows that people can remember things
>>which didn't happen.
>
> I can accept that. That conclusion seems reasonable and it
>fits with my personal data points. Was *this* the goal of the above
>referred to study ?
Partly.
>
>>Which destroys the rest of your argument which I have thus
>>snipped.
>
> OK. Then let's recap.
>
> I agree that human memories are fallible, leaky, and are
>subject to suggestions of events that did not take place.
>
It is also possible to alter memories which are already
created by later information or misinformation.
> I also agree that the study you referred to supports this
>conclusion (what I've seen of it anyway).
It does. It is an interesting study.
>
> With that said, I don't think you can use the results of this
>study to show that *all* of the content of *all* memories are false.
>You can say that they are suspect, but not *proven* false.
>
I have never said that all memories are false. I have
always said that, in the absense of corroborating external
evidence, memories can't be trusted.
Memories can be very accurate. Memories can be very
inaccurate.
In the above study, the new memories were just as vivid as
any other memories.
In another case, a created memory was rated by the person
(who didn't know that a false memory had been created in his
mind) and he rated it against 3 other memories for which he
was most positive were real.
The false memory came in as the second of the four as the
most real and one he was most positive about.
> Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I just
>want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
>
If you figure it out, please let my wife know!
She's been working on this for 31 years!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>> I only suggest this because you seem to be defending the Roswell memories
>> from the false impression that since YOUR memories of long ago are intact
>> and accurate, then it is possible that the Roswell memories are too.
>> Twitch, OTOH, is calmly citing those who have done experiments like the
>> above, and found that it ain't always so!
>>
>> So, instead of debating those who have already proven memories can be
>> tricky things, try it yourself! After you have done the experiment, you
>> will be better able to evaluate what might have happened in 1947.
>>
>> hutch
>
> Bruce,
> Thank you for your polite and sincere post,
Bruce is like that. I've been working on him but to no
avail!
>but I must tell you
> that I disagree with putting so much emphasis on the small de-
> tails of a recollection of a profound event. <snip>
But, research has shown that totally false memories can be
created of major events.
And, eyewitness accounts do not necessarly indicate that
something happened.
This was shown on the Long John Nebel radio program when the
guest warned the host of what he was going to do, then
claimed that he had seen a flight of orange, triangular UFOs
while he drove to the studio.
Loads of people called in and within a short time they were
told by "eyewitnesses" that the flight of UFOs he had seen
was only one of many. He was told the number of UFOs, the
number of flights, the altitude, the direction they were
flying in, the speed, etc.
Only trouble was, it never happened.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
(I am removing alt.ufo.reports from all my responses since
that is not an appropriate group.)
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Twitch,
>> > You and your "research" are wrong, and you have just now
>> > insulted everyone who has experienced something shocking
>> > in their lives.
>> twitch wrote:
>> Bob,
>> It wasn't my research but the research of professionals in
>> that field.
>> I'm sorry if the truth insults anyone, but I prefer it to
>> the alternative.
>
> Twitch,
> The reason that the research "findings" insult the average person is
> that the results are bogus.
Have you contacted the referred journal that these
"findings" occured in and told them?
Have you contacted the other researchers that have come up
with similar results and told them?
Bob, you have a responsibility to correct them if you have
some evidence showing that they are incorrect!
>As a matter of fact, the entire skeptic
> mindset is to distrust one's own memory and perception,
And, virtually all modern research shows that one's own
memory and perception should be mistrusted!
I doubt that you remember the Zond IV spacecraft when it
ploughed back into the atmosphere.
It was reported to be a craft with windows and a flaming
exhaust.
Now, how good was the perception of the witnesses who
reported that?
Memory? That is as bad and maybe even worse!
>and to
> depend on so-called "experts" and "officials" for the truth.
No. I look at the research they conduct. I disagreed with
some of it since it seemed to pat so conducted a few little
experiments of my own along the line that Ian suggested.
Guess what? The experts were right!
> Every post of yours reflects this state of mind.
Thank you.
Harry Bosch
Bob & Louise wrote:
>
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Twitch,
> > > You and your "research" are wrong, and you have just now
> > > insulted everyone who has experienced something shocking
> > > in their lives.
> > twitch wrote:
> > Bob,
> > It wasn't my research but the research of professionals in
> > that field.
> > I'm sorry if the truth insults anyone, but I prefer it to
> > the alternative.
>
> Twitch,
> The reason that the research "findings" insult the average person is
> mindset is to distrust one's own memory and perception, and to
> depend on so-called "experts" and "officials" for the truth.
Hi Bob & L. . .
". . .the results are bogus." You of course have some sort
of evidence for this statement.
". . .the entire skeptic mindset is to distrust one's own
memory and perception,. . ." You of course have some sort
of evidence for this statement.
"Every post of yours reflects this state of mind." You of
course have some sort of evidence for this statement.
Or are we all to believe you, just cause you said it?
Harry Bosch
Bob & Louise wrote:
>
> Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
> > I only suggest this because you seem to be defending the Roswell memories
> > from the false impression that since YOUR memories of long ago are intact
> > and accurate, then it is possible that the Roswell memories are too.
> > Twitch, OTOH, is calmly citing those who have done experiments like the
> > above, and found that it ain't always so!
> >
> > So, instead of debating those who have already proven memories can be
> > tricky things, try it yourself! After you have done the experiment, you
> > will be better able to evaluate what might have happened in 1947.
> >
> > hutch
>
> Bruce,
> that I disagree with putting so much emphasis on the small de-
> that 50 years ago, they saw a crashed disc-shaped ship with
> small, grayish humanoids lying dead or wounded nearby, I'm not
> going to disbelieve the story because some other witness says
> the little humanoids were grayish-brown. This Roswell story is not
> like some car-crash incident that needs precise details related
> in order to distinguish it from the hundreds of thousands of other
> car-crashes. If you want to disbelieve these Roswell witnesses on
> the basis that they are lying in order to make a buck, who knows,
> you could be right. But to claim that their memories are time-distorted
> to the point of seeing a MOGUL kite and later recollecting it as a crashed
> space ship surrounded by aliens, is ludicrous.
> Bob
Hi Bob.
What is really ludicrous, is your belief that human nature
doesn't embellish stories to make them sound more exciting.
I don't know where you have been or how old you are but you
must have gone through life with your eyes and ears closed.
I think it is just a human trait to embellish stories, for
what psychological reason or any other reason it is done I
don't know. I do know that it is done nonetheless. This
is the reason that personal recollections and possible
embellished stories are not worth much as evidence. There
is no possible way that fact can be separated from fiction.
I have been a good judge of character in past years, but I
am still fooled from time to time. I have to know a person
quite well before I can tell if he is embellishing or not,
and then not always. So like twitch says, "the stories do
not hold together amongst themselves", so I dispose of all
of them and use only written records that were made at the
time of the "crash" or close to it. Believing is great, but
don't you ever question these wonderful stories? All of the
damn witnesses can't possibly be right, but how do you tell
which ones are or are not?
If you have a Magic Story De-bullshitter, I would love to
know what it is.
Harry Bosch
Robert S. Huber wrote:
>
> In article <34FBAA...@sprintmail.com>, Bob & Louise
> <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Twitch,
> > > > You and your "research" are wrong, and you have just now
> > > > insulted everyone who has experienced something shocking
> > > > in their lives.
> > > twitch wrote:
> > > Bob,
> > > It wasn't my research but the research of professionals in
> > > that field.
> > > I'm sorry if the truth insults anyone, but I prefer it to
> > > the alternative.
> >
> > Twitch,
> > The reason that the research "findings" insult the average person is
> > that the results are bogus. As a matter of fact, the entire skeptic
> > mindset is to distrust one's own memory and perception, and to
> > depend on so-called "experts" and "officials" for the truth.
> > Every post of yours reflects this state of mind.
> > Bob
>
> amazing ammount of evidence, right? Where is it Bob?
>
> Where's the evidence Bob? *silence*
>
> Where's the evidence Bob? *silence*
>
> Where's the evidence Bob? *silence*
>
> Then ... SHUT THE FUCK UP!
>
> --
> All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself
> to deviations. It simply _is_. Take it moment by moment and you will
> find that we are all, as I've said before, bugs in amber.
>
> (paraphrased from a Tralfamadorian zoo keeper)
Well, I wouldn't have said it exactly like that, but it does
send a sound message all right :-)
Regards,
Bob & Louise
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> But, research has shown that totally false memories can be
> created of major events.
>
> And, eyewitness accounts do not necessarly indicate that
> something happened.
>
> This was shown on the Long John Nebel radio program when the
> guest warned the host of what he was going to do, then
> claimed that he had seen a flight of orange, triangular UFOs
> while he drove to the studio.
>
> Loads of people called in and within a short time they were
> told by "eyewitnesses" that the flight of UFOs he had seen
> was only one of many. He was told the number of UFOs, the
> number of flights, the altitude, the direction they were
> flying in, the speed, etc.
>
> Only trouble was, it never happened.
Twitch,
Gee, after hearing that story about the radio program, I don't
trust my memory at all. Anything or everything that I once
believed to be true recollections, might now be false. I feel
confused, and dizzy....I'm.....not sure of anything.....I.....
guess that this is the correct level of confidence that we
should have in our....faulty brains. I guess that we.....should
only trust the recall abilities...of the researchers....and....
you.
Bob
Bob & Louise
Harry Bosch wrote:
>
> Hi Bob & L. . .
>
> ". . .the results are bogus." You of course have some sort
> of evidence for this statement.
>
> memory and perception,. . ." You of course have some sort
> of evidence for this statement.
>
> "Every post of yours reflects this state of mind." You of
> course have some sort of evidence for this statement.
>
> Or are we all to believe you, just cause you said it?
>
> Harry
Harry Bosch,
According to the research people, you are not to believe ANYONE,
including yourself, because our memories are faulty. You see, since
our beliefs and opinions are built with life-information that we
have stored in our disfunctional memory, our very beliefs are dis-
torted and therefore, invalid. The researchers, though, somehow have
fully-functional minds that are impervious to these human mental
deficiancies. Perhaps Twitch is hinting that these researchers are..
........ ALIENS???????
Bob
Bob & Louise
Harry Bosch wrote:
> So like twitch says, "the stories do
> not hold together amongst themselves", so I dispose of all
> of them and use only written records that were made at the
> time of the "crash" or close to it. Believing is great, but
> don't you ever question these wonderful stories? All of the
> damn witnesses can't possibly be right, but how do you tell
> which ones are or are not?
>
> If you have a Magic Story De-bullshitter, I would love to
> know what it is.
>
> Harry
Harry Bosch,
Regarding Roswell, some of the eyewitness testimony is corroborated,
some is not. Some of the governments' statements offer a credible
explanation for parts of the event, but not for entire event. So, I'm
"on the fence" regarding Roswell - and you and others insist on
portraying me as being some "hook-line-and-sinker" believer in the
alien-visitation version of Roswell. Very strange.
Bob
Bob & Louise
Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>
> Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> scribed:
>
> > If you want to disbelieve these Roswell witnesses on
> > the basis that they are lying in order to make a buck, who knows,
> > you could be right. But to claim that their memories are time-distorted
> > to the point of seeing a MOGUL kite and later recollecting it as a crashed
> > space ship surrounded by aliens, is ludicrous.
>
> again. Not just in the UFO arena, but many other incidents as well. It
> might seem ridiculous on the surface, but ask any detective with more than
> 6 months experience, and (s)he'll tell you that it happens more often than
> not.
>
> hutch
Bruce Hutchinson,
Well Bruce, since people's memories are "more often than not" distorted
and therefore unreliable, you better contact your local police de-
partment and tell them to stop taking witness statements because the
statements are probably interfering with crime investigations.
Bob
sini...@concentric.net
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:45:46 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Bob & Louise <lot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
snip
>
>
>But, research has shown that totally false memories can be
>created of major events.
>
>And, eyewitness accounts do not necessarly indicate that
>something happened.
>
>This was shown on the Long John Nebel radio program when the
>guest warned the host of what he was going to do, then
>claimed that he had seen a flight of orange, triangular UFOs
>while he drove to the studio.
That was The Amazing Randi, IIRC. It was one helluva troll.
>
>Loads of people called in and within a short time they were
>told by "eyewitnesses" that the flight of UFOs he had seen
>was only one of many. He was told the number of UFOs, the
>number of flights, the altitude, the direction they were
>flying in, the speed, etc.
>
>Only trouble was, it never happened.
I wonder how many people called in who believed they'd
actually seen something as opposed to those sick
in-DUH- viduals who just want to say, "Me too!"
Scott
In <6dhc33$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, twi...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
<good twitch stuff scratched>
twitch:
>It is also possible to alter memories which are already
>created by later information or misinformation.
>
REALLY ? Gosh, Do you think the gov/mil/media know this ?
>I have never said that all memories are false. I have
>always said that, in the absense of corroborating external
>evidence, memories can't be trusted.
>
>Memories can be very accurate. Memories can be very
>inaccurate.
Thank you for clarifying. I'm satisfied. Cigarette ?
>> Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I just
>>want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
>>
>If you figure it out, please let my wife know!
I think I got a pretty good profile of you going. OK, put her
on, she can ask questions, I'll explain, and you can jump in and
correct me. I like the idea, whadda you say ?
>
>She's been working on this for 31 years!
How long have *you* been working on it ?
Scott
In <34FC92...@chatlink.com>, Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com>
wrote:
>
>Hi Bob.
>
Uh, Am I supposed to take a drink ?
Better take one, just to be safe.
--
Scott
s...@ns.net